Tflniveretty tutorial Series. 
 
 MANUAL OF ETHICS. 
 
 BT 
 
 JOHN S. MACKENZIE, M.A., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Or SOUTH WALM 
 AND MOMMOUTH8H1KE ; FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 RSVISKD, ENLARGED, AND IN PAT REWRITTEN. 
 
 HINDS, HAYDEN & ELDREDGE, INC. 
 NEW YORK CITY 

 
 PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 The chief change in this edition consists in the addition 
 of a chapter on the "Authority of the Moral Standard " 
 (Book II., Chapter VI.). This chapter includes an ac- 
 count of the Sanctions, which formerly appeared as a 
 note to Chapter VI. of Book III. I have also added a 
 short note on the classification of the Virtues at the end 
 of Chapter IV. of Book III. The other alterations in 
 this edition are very slight. 
 
 I am glad to have this opportunity of acknowledging 
 the kind expressions of appreciation that I have received 
 from teachers of Philosophy in the United States and 
 Canada. It is particularly gratifying to me to know that 
 my book has been found useful in a part of the world 
 from which so many of the most valuable and attractive 
 Manuals of Philosophy have come. At a time when we 
 are being somewhat acutely reminded of the essential 
 similarity of our political problems, it is perliaps specially 
 fitting that we should remember that we are still more 
 profoundly united on the larger problems of life and 
 thought. 
 1 February, 1901. 
 
 Copyright, 1897, by IV. B. Clive. 
 Copyright, lyof, by Hinds & Noll*
 
 PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 THIS handbook is intended primarily for the use of 
 private students, and especially for those who are prepar- 
 ing for such examinations in Ethics as those conducted 
 by the University of London. It is hoped, however, that 
 it will be found useful also by other classes of readers. 
 Its design is to give, in brief compass, an outline of the 
 most important principles of ethical doctrine, so far as 
 these can be understood without a knowledge of Meta- 
 physics. 
 
 To do this satisfactorily is by no means easy ; and I 
 can hardly hope that I have been successful in overcom- 
 ing the difficulties. The theory of Ethics must, I believe, 
 in the end rest on Metaphysics ; and what it is possible 
 to do without Metaphysics can be little more than a clear- 
 ing of the ground, and a leading up to the metaphysical 
 principles that are involved in the subject. The system 
 of metaphysical truth, however, is like a city with many 
 gates ; and perhaps the student may enter it by the ethical 
 gate as profitably as by any other. It has been my aim, 
 at any rate, to conduct the student gradually inwards from 
 the psychological outworks to the metaphysical founda- 
 tion. 
 
 It is perhaps hardly necessary to say that the meta- 
 physical point of view adopted in this Manual is 
 that of the school of Idealism i. e. the school founded 
 
 v
 
 VI PREFACE. 
 
 by Kant and developed by Hegel, Green, and other*. 
 In this respect the present Text-book is similar to 
 two other treatises which appeared a little before it 
 Dewey's Outlines of a Critical Theory of Ethics, and Muir- 
 head's Elements of Ethics* If these books had been 
 published before this one was arranged for, it is probable 
 that it would never have been undertaken. As it is, I 
 can only plead that the subject is handled in this work in 
 a way slightly different from that in which it is taken up 
 by either of the other two, and that it may consequently 
 in some respects satisfy a want which neither of them 
 fully meets. I hope, however, that readers of my book 
 will, as far as possible, consult the other two also. Where 
 there is a general harmony of point of view, a compari- 
 son of the methods of treatment adopted by different 
 writers on points of detail is often of the greatest value 
 to the student. I think it would be especially useful for 
 readers of this book, who have time to spare, to compare 
 it in this way with Muirhead's Elements of Ethics. The 
 latter work is designed for a slightly different purpose ; 
 and at many points it will be found to supply a very use- 
 ful supplement to the present treatise by presenting the 
 same general ideas in a somewhat different light. For 
 the convenience of students who may use it in this way, 
 I have inserted frequent references to Mr. Muirhead's 
 book, and have indicated the main points of divergence. 
 
 1 Other two books which have since appeared Professor James 
 Seth's Study of Ethical Principles and Mr. C. F. D'Arcy's Short 
 Study of Ethics are also written from a point of view which is to a 
 large extent similar. In both of these books there is a good deal of 
 space devoted to the discussion of the metaphysical basis ; but in 
 neither case does the discussion appear satisfactory. On the whole 
 I have thought it best to leave such discussions to works that arc - 
 prescly metaphysical in character.
 
 PREFACE. Vli 
 
 My obligations to the leading exponents of the science 
 are sufficiently obvious, and need not be specially ac- 
 knowledged. In particular, how much I owe to Dr. 
 Edward Caird will probably be evident to every one who 
 is familiar with his writings and teaching. I must, how- 
 ever, make some more particular acknowledgment of the 
 assistance I have received at various points from several 
 friends and critics. 
 
 The proofs of this edition, as well as of the first, have 
 been read by Mrs. Gilliland Husband, and I am indebted 
 to her for many highly suggestive criticisms. Mr. James 
 Welton also read all the proofs of the first edition, and 
 Mr. Stout has read all the proofs of the present edition ; 
 and from both of these gentlemen I have received valu- 
 able assistance. I am also indebted to Professor Alex- 
 ander for some useful criticisms ; and, on smaller points, 
 to Principal Lloyd Morgan, Professor Sully, Mr. W. T. 
 Kenwood, Mr. J. A. Clarke, and others. The published 
 criticisms by Dr. Bosanquet, Professor Ritchie, Mr. Muir- 
 head, Miss E. E. C. Jones, and others have been very 
 helpful. The index at the end of the first edition was 
 prepared by Mr. H. Holman ; that at the end of the present 
 edition is the work of Mr. W. F. Trotter, of Trinity Col- 
 lege, Cambridge, who has also given me much help in 
 verifying references. 
 
 In conclusion, for the sake of those who have been 
 using the previous editions, it may be well to give some 
 indication of the principal changes that have been made 
 in the present one. An effort has been made, in the first 
 place, to render the method of treatment more systematic. 
 With a view to this, the work has been divided into five 
 parts. Of these, Book III. is the part that has been most 
 slightly altered. The only changes in this consist in
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 insignificant modifications of detail. The CONCLUDING 
 CHAPTER has to do duty for the last two chapters of the 
 former editions, and has undergone considerable transfor- 
 mation. The references to Art have been almost entirely 
 omitted, while the references to Metaphysics have been 
 made a good deal more definite. In the INTRODUCTION 
 some further remarks have been added on the divisions 
 into which the treatment of Ethics naturally falls, and 
 the statements about the relation of Ethics to practical 
 life have been considerably modified. I have found that 
 what I said on this subject has been a good deal misun- 
 derstood ; and the misunderstanding seemed to be due to 
 want of clearness in my exposition, especially in the first 
 chapter. I have, accordingly, added a good deal more in 
 the way of explanation in this chapter, and have removed 
 some passages about the general nature of moral law, 
 which seemed specially liable to misinterpretation, and 
 have inserted them in Book II., Chap. III., where they 
 are perhaps more in place. I have also added a chapter 
 at the end of Book II., dealing with the general subject 
 of the bearing of Theory on Practice. I hope I may have 
 succeeded in this way in removing the impression, which 
 appears to have been created in some minds, that I thought 
 it to be the business of ethical science to construct the 
 moral life in vacuo. Nothing could well have been fur- 
 ther from my intention; and, if I have overestimated 
 the practical significance of philosophical reflection, I 
 have at least not forgotten either the dictum of Hegel ' 
 
 1 " Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until 
 reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. . . . 
 When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has be- 
 come old, and by such painting it cannot be rejuvenated, but only 
 known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shade*
 
 PREFACE. 1*X 
 
 or the epigram of Bradley,' or the gibe of Schiller. 8 I do 
 not hold, with Coleridge, that " the only kind of common 
 sense worth having is that which is based on Metaphysics ; " 
 but I do certainly believe that there is not much value in 
 any kind of common sense that cannot be vindicated 
 by philosophical reflection ; and I think that, when it is 
 thus vindicated, it is at the same time enlightened. 
 
 The most considerable alterations, however, occur in 
 Book I. I have thought it desirable to add a good deal 
 of new material on the development of the moral life and 
 of the moral judgment. It may be held that these sub- 
 jects belong more properly to Sociology and Psychology 
 than to Ethics in the stricter sense ; but I have found that 
 their absence is a more serious defect than their presence. 
 I have also added, at the beginning of Book II., a short 
 historical account of the leading points of view in ethical 
 theory. 
 
 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, CARDIFF, 
 
 May, 1897. 
 
 of night are gathering." Preface to the Rechtsphilosopkie. As a 
 counterblast to this, it may be remarked, however, that several 
 things seem to have been rejuvenated by Hegel himself. 
 
 1 " Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe 
 upon instinct." Preface to Appearance and Reality. But are tha 
 reasons always " bad," and are they always " for " ? 
 8 " Doch well, was ein Professor spricht, 
 Nicht gleich zu Allen dringet, 
 So iibt Natur die Mutterpflicht 
 Und sorgt, dass nie die Kette bricht, 
 Und dass der Reif nie springet. 
 Einstweilen, bis den Bau der Welt 
 Philosophic zusammenhalt, 
 Erhalt sit das Getriebe 
 Durch Hunger und durch Liebe." Die Weltweisen.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 CHAPTER I. THE SCOPS o* ETHICS. 
 
 { 1. Definition : The Science of the Ideal in Conduct. 
 2 2. The Nature of Ethics. It is a Normative 
 Science. 2 3. Ethics not a Practical Science. \ 4. 
 Ethics not an Art. 2 6. Is there an Art of Conduct ? 
 How Conduct is distinguished from the Arts. 
 ( i ) Virtue Exists only in Activity. ( 2 ) The Essence 
 of Virtue lies in the Will. 2 6. Is there any Science 
 of Conduct ? 2 7. Summary I 
 
 Note on Positive and Normative Sciences 20 
 
 CHAPTER II. THEREI^TION OF ETHICS TO OTHER SCIENCES. 
 
 \ 1. General Statement. 2 2. Physical Science and Ethics. 
 2 8. Biology and Ethics. 4. Psychology and 
 Ethics. 2 6. Logic, Esthetics and Ethics. \ 6. 
 Metaphysics and Ethics. \ 7. Ethics and Political 
 Philosophy. 28. Ethics and Economics. 2 & 
 Ethics and Paedagogics. 2 10- Concluding Remarks. 23 
 
 CHAPTER m. THE DIVISIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 | 1. General Remarks. 2 2. The Psychological Aspect of 
 Ethics. 2 3- The Sociological Aspect of Ethics. 
 { 4. The Theories of the Moral Standard. 2 5. The 
 Concrete Moral Life. 2 6. Pl* n f the Present 
 
 Work 35 
 
 X
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 BOOK L 
 
 PROLEGOMENA, CHIEFLY PSYCHOLOGICAL 
 CHAPTER I. DESIRE AND 
 
 MM 
 
 1. Introductory Remarks. ? 2. General Nature of Desire. 
 
 3 3. Want and Appetite. \ 4. Appetite and De 
 sire. | 5. Universe of Desire. \ 6. Conflict of De- 
 sires. \ 7. Desire and Wish. \ 8. Wish and WilL 
 
 \ 9. Will and Act \ 1O. The Meaning of Pur- 
 pose. 2 11. Will and Character ................... 43 
 
 CHAPTER II. MOTIVE AND INTENTION. 
 
 | 1. Preliminary Remarks. \ 2. The Meaning of Inten- 
 tion. \ 3. The Meaning of Motive. \ 4. Relation 
 between Motives and Intentions. \ 5. Is the Motive 
 always Pleasure? \ 6. Psychological Hedonism. 
 7. The Object of Desire, (i) The Paradox of 
 Hedonism.? 8. The Object of Desire. (2) Wants 
 prior to Satisfactions. 9. The Object of Desire. (3) 
 Pleasures and Pleasure. \ 10. Can Reason Serve as 
 a Motive ? \ 1 1 . Is Reason the only Motive ? \ 12. 
 How Motives are Constituted ....................... 59 
 
 Note on Pleasure and Desire ....................... 79 
 
 CHAPTER III. CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. 
 
 i 1. General Remarks. 2 2. Character. \ 3. Conduct. 
 
 I 4. Circumstance. \ 6. Habit $ 6. The Free- 
 dom of the Will. \ 7 . Freedom Essential to Morals. 
 
 28. Necessity Essential to Morals. 9. The True 
 Sense of Freedom. \ 1O. Animal Spontaneity. 
 $11. Human Liberty. 12. The Highest Free- 
 dom. 13. The Nature of Voluntary Action ....... 83 
 
 Note on Responsibility... ......................... lot
 
 CONTENTS. 
 CHAPTER IV. THE EVOLUTION OP CONDUCT. 
 
 MM 
 
 Introductory Statement \ 2. Germs of Conduct in 
 the Lower Animals. 3. Conduct among Savages. 
 ? 4. The Guidance of Conduct by Custom. ? 5. The 
 Guidance of Conduct by Law. \ 6. The Guidance 
 of Conduct by Ideas. \ 7. Action and Reflection. 
 \ 8. Moral Ideas and Ideas about Morality. ? 9. 
 The Development of the Moral Consciousness 104 
 
 Note on Sociology 113 
 
 CHAPTER V. THE GROWTH OF THE MORAI, JUDGMENT. 
 
 1. The Earliest Forms of the Moral Judgment. ? 2. The 
 Tribal Self. \ 3. The Origin of Conscience. \ 4. 
 Custom as the Moral Standard. \ 5. Positive Law as 
 the Moral Standard. 6. The Moral Law. \ 7. 
 Moral Conflict. \ 8. The Individual Conscience as 
 Standard.? 9. The Growth of the Reflective Judg- 
 ment. ? 1O. Illustrations from Ancient Peoples. 
 $11. General Nature of Moral Development 114 
 
 CHAPTER VI. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAI, 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 { 1. The Nature of the Moral Judgment. \ 2. The Object 
 of the Moral Judgment.? 3. The Good Will.? 4. 
 Judgment on Act and on Agent. ? 5. Is the Moral 
 Judgment concerned with Motives or with Inten- 
 tions ? ? 6. The Moral Judgment is partly concerned 
 with Motives. ? 7. But the Judgment is really on 
 Character.? 8. The Subject of the Moral Judg- 
 ment. ? 9. The Moral Connoisseur. ? 1O. The 
 Impartial Spectator.? 11. The Ideal Self 127 
 
 Note on the Meaning of Conscience 146
 
 CONTENTS. Xlll 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 THEORIES OP THE MORAL STANDARD. 
 CHAPTER I. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ETHICAL THOUGHT 
 
 PAGB 
 
 $ 1. Early Greek Ethics. ? 2. The Sophists. ? 3. 
 Socrates. ? 4. The Schools of Ethical Thought. 
 \ 5. Plato and Aristotle. ? 6. Mediaeval Ethics. 
 g 7. Schools of Ethics in Modern Times 147 
 
 CHAPTER II. THE TYPES OP ETHICAL THEORY. 
 
 { 1. General Survey. \ 2. Reason and Passion. ? 3. 
 The Right and the Good. ? 4. Duty, Happiness, 
 Perfection. ? 5. Mixed Theories 156 
 
 CHAPTER III. THE STANDARD AS LAW. 
 
 PART I. THE GENERAL IDEA OF MORAL LAW. ? 1. In- 
 troductory Remarks. ? 2. The 2rleaning of Law in 
 Ethics. ? 3. Is, Must be, and Ought to be. \ 4. 
 The Categorical Imperative. PART II. VARIOUS 
 CONCEPTIONS OF THE MORAL LAW. ? 5. The Law 
 of the Tribe. \ 6. The Law of God.? 7. The Law 
 of Nature. \ 8. The Moral Sense.? 9. The Law 
 of Conscience. \ 10. Intuitionism. ? 11. The Law 
 of Reason. PART III. THE DOCTRINE OF KANT. 
 ? 12. Kant's View of the Moral Reason.? 13. 
 Criticism of Kant, (i) Formalism. ? 14. Criti- 
 cism of Kant (2) Stringency. ? 15. Real Signifi- 
 cance of the Kantian Principle 162 
 
 Note on Kant 203 
 
 CHAPTER IV. THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 
 
 | 1. Introductory Remarks.? 2. Higher and Lower 
 Universes. ? 3. Satisfaction of Desires. ? 4. Varie- 
 ties of Hedonism. ? 5. Ethical Hedonism. ? 6. 
 Quantity of Pleasure. g 7. Egoistic Hedonism.
 
 XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 FAG* 
 
 5 8. Universalistic Hedonism. \ 9. General Criti- 
 cism of Hedonism, (a) Pleasure and Value, (b) 
 Quality of Pleasures, (c) Kinds of Pleasures, (d) 
 Pleasure inseparable from its Object, (e) Pleasures 
 cannot be summed. (_/) Matter without Form. 
 | 10. Relation of Happiness to the Self.? 11. 
 Self-realisation as the End 207 
 
 CHAPTER V. THE STANDARD AS PERFECTION. 
 
 2 1. Application of Evolution to Morals. \ 2. Develop- 
 ment of Life. \ 8. Higher and Lower Views of De- 
 velopment. 4. Explanation by Beginning. $ 6. 
 Mr. Herbert Spencer's View of Ethics. \ 6. Criti- 
 cism of Mr. Spencer's View. \ 7. Views of other 
 Evolutionists. \ 8. Natural Selection in Morals. 
 9. Need of Teleology. \ 1O. Explanation by End. 
 2 11. Green's View of Ethics. \ 12. The True 
 Self. 13. The real Meaning of Self -consistency. 
 5 14. The real Meaning of Happiness. \ 15. Transi- 
 tion to Applied Ethics 234 
 
 CHAPTER VI. THE AUTHORITY OF THE MORAL STANDARD. 
 
 L The General Problem of Authority. 2. Different Kinds 
 of Authority. 3. Various Views of Moral Authority. 
 4. The Authority of Law. 5. The Sanctions of 
 Morality. 6. The Authority of Conscience. 7. The 
 Authority of Reason. 8. The Absoluteness of the Moral 
 Authority 255 
 
 CHAPTER VII. THE BEARING OF THEORY ON PRACTICE. 
 
 L Different Views. 2. Relation of Different Views to the 
 Various Ethical Theories 3. The Intuitionist View. 
 $ 4. The Utilitarian View. 6. The Evolutionist View. 
 f 6. The Idealistic View. 7. Summary of Results. 
 8. Comparison between Ethics and Logic. 9. The 
 Treatment of Applied Ethics 373
 
 CONTENTS. X V 
 
 BOOK III. 
 
 THE MORAL LIFE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. THE SOCIAL UNITY. 
 
 PACK 
 
 $ 1. The Social Self. 2. Society a Unity. 3. Egoism and 
 Altruism. 4. Mr. Spencer's Conciliation. 5. Self- 
 realisation through Self-sacrifice. 6. Ethics a Part of 
 Politics. 7. Plato's View of Ethics. 8. Aristotle'i 
 View of Ethics. 9. Cosmopolitism. 10. Christian 
 Ethics. 11. The Social Universe. 12. Society an 
 Organism. 13. Why is the Social Universe to be Pre- 
 ferred ? 14. Relation of Conscience to the Social Unity 291 
 
 CHAPTER II. MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 L The Social Imperative. 2. Justice. 3. Law and Public 
 Opinion. 4. Rights and Obligations. 5. The Rights 
 of Man. (a) Life. () Freedom, (c) Property. (</) Contract. 
 (*) Education. 6. Ultimate Meaning of Rights and 
 Obligations. 7. Social Institutions, (a) The Family. 
 () The Workshop, (c) The Civic Community, (d) The 
 Church, (<r) The State. (/) Friendship. 8. Social Pro- 
 gress. 9. Individualism and Socialism 309 
 
 Note on Justice 329 
 
 CHAPTER III. THE DUTIES. 
 
 L Nature of Moral Laws. 2. Respect for Life. 4 3. Respect 
 for Freedom. 4. Respect for Character. 6. Respect 
 for Property. 6. Respect for Social Order. 7. Respect 
 for Truth. 8. Respect for Progress. 9. Casuistry. 
 10. The Supreme Law. 11. Conventional Rules. 
 11. Duties of Perfect and Imperfect Obligation. 13. My 
 Station and its Duties 332 
 
 Note OB Rules of Conduct 349
 
 CONTENTS. 
 CHAPTER IV. THE VIRTUES. 
 
 PACE 
 
 1. Relation of the Virtues to the Commandments. 2. Virtues 
 relative to States of Society. 3. The Ethos of a People. 
 4. The Virtues relative to the Social Functions. 
 6. The Nature of Virtue. 6. The Cardinal Virtues. 
 7. Education of Character. 8. The Moral Syllogism... 352 
 
 Note on the Classification of the Virtues 372 
 
 CHAPTER V. THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE. 
 
 L The Higher Individualism. 2. Conversion. 3. Con- 
 scientiousness. 4. Self-Examination. 5. The Study 
 of the Ideal. 6. The Monastic Life. 7. Beautiful 
 Souls. 8. Asceticism. 9. The Contemplative Life. 
 10. Relation of the Inner to the Outer Life. 11. Tha 
 Virtuous Man and the World. 12. The Moral Reforme 374 
 
 CHAPTER VI. MORAL PATHOLOGY. 
 
 L Moral Evil. 2. Vice. 3. Sin. 4. Crime. 5. Punish- 
 ment. 6. Theories of Punishment. 7. Responsibility. 
 8. Remorse. 9. Reformation. 10. Forgiveness. 
 1L Social Corruption , 393 
 
 CHAPTER VII. MORAL PROGRESS. 
 
 1. Social Evolution. 2. The Moral Universe $ 3. Inner 
 Contradictions in our Universe. 4. Sense of Incomplete- 
 ness. 6. Deepening of Spiritual Life. 6. New Obli- 
 gations. 7. Moral Change and Change of Environment. 
 8. The Ideal Universe 413 
 
 CONCLUDING CHAPTER. ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 
 
 $ L General Remarks. 2. Validity of the Ideal. 3. Morality 
 and Religion. 4. The Relation of Religion to Art
 
 CONTENTS. XVU 
 
 PACK 
 
 5. The Necessity of Religion. 6. The Failure of Life. 
 7. The Failure of Society. 8. The Failure of Art. 
 9. The Demand for the Infinite. 10. The Two In- 
 finites.^ 11. The First Religion. 12. The Second 
 Religion. 13. The Third Religion. 14. Religion and 
 Superstition. 15. The Essential Significance of Religion. 
 16. The Ultimate Problems of Metaphysics 431 
 
 APPENDIX. Note on Ethical Literature 455 
 
 INDEX 459
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 CHAPTER L 
 
 THE SCOPE OF ETHICS. 
 
 1. DEFINITION. The Science of the Ideal in Con- 
 duct. Ethics is the science of Conduct It considers 
 the actions of human beings with reference to their 
 tightness or wrongness, their tendency to good or to 
 evil. The name "Ethics" is derived from the Greek 
 r& -ijOud. This again comes from $00?, meaning char- 
 acter; and this is connected with ?0o?, custom or 
 habit. Similarly, the term " Moral Philosophy," which 
 means the same thing as Ethics, is derived from the 
 Latin mores, meaning habits or customs. Ethics, 
 then, we may say, discusses men's habits and cus- 
 toms, or in other words their characters, the principles 
 on which they habitually act, and considers what it is 
 that constitutes the Tightness or wrongness of these 
 principles, the good or evil of these habits. These 
 terms, however, "Right" and "Good," seem to re- 
 quire a little explanation. 
 
 (a) Right. The term "Right" is derived from the 
 Latin reclus, meaning "straight"' or "according to 
 rule." The Greek word corresponding to it is itxato?, 
 
 which also meant originally "according to rule." 
 Eth. I
 
 2 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. I. 
 
 When we say, then, that conduct is right, we mean 
 primarily that it is according to rule. Rules, however, 
 have reference to some result to be achieved by them ; 
 and it is this fact that is indicated by the second term, 
 "Good." 
 
 (b) Good. The term " Good " is connected with the 
 German gut, and contains the same root as the Greek 
 dyadd?. A thing is generally said to be good when it 
 is valuable for some end. Thus, particular kinds of 
 medicine are said to be good for this or that complaint 
 Similarly, when we speak of conduct as good, we may 
 mean that it is serviceable for the end we have in 
 view. 1 It should be carefully observed, however, that 
 the term "good" is also used (perhaps even more fre- 
 quently) to signify not something which is a means to 
 an end, but something which is itself taken as an end. 
 Thus the summum bonum, or supreme good, means the 
 supreme end at which we aim. 
 
 Thus, when we say that the science of Ethics is con- 
 cerned with the rightness or goodness of human con- 
 duct, we mean that it is concerned with the considera- 
 tion of the serviceableness of our conduct for some end 
 at which we aim, and with the rules by which our 
 conduct is to be directed in order that this end may be 
 attained.* But if we are to consider the serviceable- 
 ness of our actions to an end, and the rules by which 
 this end is to be attained, it is evident that we must 
 have some understanding of the nature of the end it- 
 self. Now there are many ends to which our actions 
 
 i Cf. Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, p. 65 Also, Spencer's Data of 
 Ethics, chap. iiL 
 
 a This statement must be regarded as provisional It is to some 
 extent modified by the following paragraphs.
 
 I.] THE SCOPE OF ETHICS. J 
 
 may be directed, e. g. the building of a house, the writ- 
 ing of a book, the passing of an examination, and so 
 on. But since Ethics is the science of Conduct as a 
 whole, and not of any particular kinds of Conduct, it 
 is not any of these special ends that it sets itself to 
 consider, but the supreme or ultimate end to which 
 our whole lives are directed. This end is commonly 
 referred to as the Summum Bonum or Supreme Good. 
 Now it is no doubt open to question at the outset, 
 whether there can be said to be any one supreme end 
 in human life. Men aim at various objects. Some 
 desire wealth ; others, independence ; others, power. 
 Some are eager for fame ; others, for knowledge ; 
 others, for love ; and some again find their highest 
 good in loving and serving others. x Some are fond of 
 excitement ; others, of peace. Some fill their lives 
 with many-sided interests art and science, and the 
 development of social and political institutions ; others 
 are tempted to regard all these as vanityj and some- 
 times even, turning from them all in disgust, to believe 
 that the best thing of all would be to die and be at 
 rest ; 2 while others again fix their highest hopes on a 
 life beyond death, to be perfected in a better world 
 than this. But a little consideration serves to show 
 that many of these ends cannot be regarded as ulti- 
 
 1 "This is shown by the delight that mothers take in loving ; for 
 some give their children to others to rear, and love them since they 
 know them, but do not look for love in return, if it be impossible to 
 have both, being content to see their children doing well, and loving 
 them, though they receive from them, in their ignorance, nothing of 
 what is due to a mother." Aristotle's Ethics, VIII. viii. 3. 
 
 2 See, for instance, Shakespeare's Sonnet LXVI. " Tired with all 
 these, for restful death I cry," &a, and cf. Byron and the modern 
 Pessimists, passim.
 
 4 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. I. 
 
 mate. If, for instance, we were to question those who 
 are seeking for wealth or independence or power, we 
 should generally find that they would explain their 
 desire for these objects by enumerating the advantages 
 which the attainment of the desired objects would 
 bring. The possibility of such an explanation proves 
 that these objects are not regarded as ultimate ends by 
 those who pursue them, but are desired for the sake of 
 something else. Still, we hardly seem to be justified 
 in starting with the assumption that there is any one 
 ultimate end in human life. The question whether 
 any such end can be discovered is rather one that 
 must be discussed in the course of our study. What 
 it is necessary for us to assume is simply that there is 
 some ideal in life, *'. e. that there is some standard of 
 judgment by reference to which we are able to say 
 that one form of conduct is better than another. What 
 the nature of this ideal or standard is whether it has 
 reference to a single ultimate end, to a set of rules 
 imposed upon us by some authority, to an ideal type 
 of human life which we are somehow enabled to form 
 for ourselves, or in what other possible way it is deter- 
 mined we must endeavour to discover as we go on. 
 In the meantime it seems sufficient to define Ethics as 
 the science of the ideal involved in human life. 1 
 
 2. THE NATURE OF ETHICS. // is a Normative Sci- 
 ence. The fact that Ethics is concerned with an end 
 or ideal or standard serves at once to distinguish it 
 from most other sciences. Most sciences are con- 
 
 1 On the general nature of the science of Ethics, the reader may 
 consult Sidgwick's History of Ethics, Chap. I. ; Muirhead'3 Elements 
 of Ethics, Book I. ; Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, Introduction ; and 
 Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics, Book I., Chap. L
 
 2.] THE SCOPE OF ETHICS. $ 
 
 cerned with certain uniformities of our experience 
 with the ways in which certain classes of objects (such 
 as rocks or plants) are found to exist, or with the ways 
 in which certain classes of events (such as the phe- 
 nomena of sound or electricity) are found to occur. 
 Such sciences have no direct reference to any end that 
 is to be achieved or to any ideal by reference to which 
 the facts are judged. The knowledge which they com- 
 municate may, indeed, be useful for certain purposes. 
 A knowledge about rocks is useful for those who wish 
 to build houses or to sink mines. A knowledge about 
 electricity is useful for those who wish to protect their 
 buildings or to form telegraphic communications. But 
 tne truth of the sciences that deal with such subjects 
 as these is in no way affected by the ends which they 
 may thus be made to subserve. Knowledge about 
 the nebulae is as much a part of the science of astron- 
 omy as knowledge about the solar system, though the 
 latter can be directly turned to account in the art of 
 navigation, while the former has no direct practical 
 utility. The science of Ethics, then, is distinguished 
 from the natural sciences, inasmuch as it has a direct 
 reference to an end that men desire to attain, or a 
 type to which they wish to approximate. 
 
 It is not by any means the only science, however, 
 which has such a reference. On the contrary, there is 
 a whole class of sciences of this character. These are 
 commonly called the normative sciences t. e. the sci- 
 ences that lay down rules or laws or, more strictly, 
 that seek to define a standard or ideal with reference 
 to which rules or laws may be formulated. Of this 
 kind are the science of medicine (/. <?. Hygienics), 
 which deals with the nature of the distinction between
 
 6 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. I. 
 
 health and disease, and with the rules to be observed 
 for the attainment of health, or for the avoidance and 
 removal of disease ; the science of architecture, which 
 deals with the types to be aimed at and the rules to be 
 observed in the construction of buildings, with a view 
 to their stability, convenience, and beauty ; the sci- 
 ence of navigation, which deals with the aims and 
 principles involved in the management of ships ; the 
 science of rhetoric, which deals with the principles of 
 persuasiveness and beauty of style ; the science of 
 logic, which deals with the conditions of correct think- 
 ing. Most of these sciences are of a mixed character, 
 being partly concerned with the analysis of facts, and 
 partly with the definition of ends or ideals and with 
 the statement of rules to be observed for the at- 
 tainment of them. Thus the science of medicine 
 deals with the facts of disease as well as with the 
 nature and conditions of health, and the science of 
 architecture discusses the ways in which buildings 
 have been constructed at various periods of man's 
 history, as well as the ways in which it is most desir- 
 able that buildings should be constructed. Sometimes, 
 indeed, these two sides of a science are so evenly 
 balanced, that it is difficult to say whether it ought 
 properly to be regarded as a natural or a normative 
 science. This is notably the case with regard to 
 political economy. But in all such cases it is possible 
 to separate the two sides of the science, and to con- 
 sider them as forming in reality two distinct, though 
 closely connected, sciences. 
 
 In the case of Ethics, the normative side is by far 
 the more important ; but the other side is not entirely 
 absent There are ethical facts as well as ethical laws
 
 2.] THE SCOPE OF ETHICS. 7 
 
 and ideals. Thus the ideas of the Thugs, who are 
 said to regard murder as a supreme duty, constitute an 
 important fact in the moral life of a certain section of 
 mankind ; but no scientific system of ethics is ever 
 likely to include such a duty in its statement of the 
 moral ideal, any more than a system of medicine is 
 likely to express approval of extensive indulgence in 
 alcohol or tight lacing. This is no doubt a somewhat 
 extreme case ; but there are in every community 
 certain peculiarities of the moral sense which are in 
 reality quite analogous. Thus, much of the conduct 
 which is regarded as fine and noble in a modern 
 Englishman, would probably have seemed almost 
 unintelligible to a cultivated Athenian or to a devout 
 Jew in the ancient world ; and much of the conduct 
 that one of the latter would have praised, would seem 
 to the modern Englishman to lack delicacy or human- 
 ity. Now, some of the differences which occur in the 
 moral codes of different peoples are not without mean- 
 ing even for the student of the moral ideal. A reflective 
 moralist, to whatever school of thought he might belong, 
 would not approve of quite the same conduct under all 
 conditions of life, any more than a thoughtful physician 
 would prescribe the same regimen to an inhabitant of 
 Canada as to an inhabitant of India. Different circum- 
 stances bring different obligations ; and in the general 
 progress of history, there is a progress in the nature of 
 the duties that are imposed on men. As Lowell says 
 
 " New occasions teach new duties : 
 Time makes ancient good uncouth." 
 
 Even the strictest of moralists, therefore, might admit 
 differences in ethical codes at different times and
 
 8 ITHICS. [INTROD., CH. I. 
 
 places. But the differences which we actually find are 
 not all of this nature. No system of medicine would 
 commend opium and crushed feet ; and no system of 
 ethics would regard with equal approval the Code of 
 Honour, the Ten Commandments, and the Sermon on 
 the Mount. But all these are ethical facts, and have an 
 equal right to be chronicled as such, though they have 
 not an equal right to be approved. There is a marked 
 difference, therefore, between the science which deals 
 with the facts of the moral life and that which deals 
 with the rules and ideals of the moral life. The former 
 science is a part of that wider science which deals with 
 the general structure of societies the science which is 
 usually known as Sociology. The latter science, on 
 the other hand, is that to which the name of Ethics is 
 more strictly appropriated ; and it is with it alone, or 
 at least mainly, that we shall be concerned in the 
 present work. The former is a natural or positive 
 science ; the latter is a normative science. But, of 
 course, in dealing with the latter, we can scarcely 
 avoid touching on the former. 
 
 3. ETHICS NOT A PRACTICAL SCIENCE. There is, 
 however, still another distinction which it is important 
 to draw. It will be observed that the sciences referred 
 to in the foregoing paragraph as normative are not all 
 of quite the same kind. Some of them are definitely 
 concerned with the consideration of the means required 
 for the realisation of certain assignable ends, while 
 others are more directly interested in the elucidation 
 of the ends or ideals involved in certain forms of 
 activity. Perhaps it would be best to confine the term 
 "normative" to the latter kind of science, while the 
 former might be more appropriately described as " prac-
 
 3-] THE SCOPE OF ETHICS. 9 
 
 tical." Medicine (Hygienics) is a practical science, 
 rather than a normative one, since its aim is not so 
 much that of understanding the ideal of health ' as 
 hat of ascertaining the means by which health may 
 L, best produced. New, the science of Ethics has 
 sometimes been regarded as a practical science in this 
 sense. It is generally so regarded by those writers 
 who think that it is possible to formulate some one 
 simple end at which human beings ought to aim as the 
 suntmum bonum. Thus, what is commonly known as 
 the Utilitarian school regards the attainment of "the 
 greatest happiness of the greatest number " as the end 
 to be aimed at, and conceives that it is the business of 
 Ethics to consider the means by which this end may 
 be attained, just as the scientific student of public 
 health may consider the best means for preventing the 
 spread of an infectious disease. The extent to which, 
 if at all, it is possible to treat Ethics in this way, will 
 have to be considered at a later stage, after we have 
 discussed the different views that may be taken of the 
 nature of the moral ideal. We shall then see grounds 
 for thinking that the moral life cannot be regarded as 
 directed towards the attainment of any one simple 
 result, and that consequently the means of attaining 
 the moral ideal cannot be formulated in any definite set 
 of rules. In so far as this is the case, the science of 
 Ethics cannot properly be described as practical. It 
 must content itself with understanding the nature of 
 the ideal, and must not hope to formulate rules for its 
 attainment. Hence most writers on Ethics have pre- 
 ferred to treat it as a purely speculative, rather than as 
 a practical science. This is probably the best view to 
 
 i Perhaps this is more properly the function of Physiology.
 
 10 ETHICS. [INTROP, ~*T. t 
 
 take. At arfp- rate, it is important to observe that the 
 description of Ethics as "normative" does not involve 
 the view that it has any direct bearing on practice. It 
 is the business of a normative science to define an 
 ideal, not to lay down rules for its attainment. Esthe- 
 tics, for instance, is a normative science, concerned 
 with the standard 6f Beauty ; but it is no part of its 
 business to inquire how Beauty is produced. So with 
 Ethics. It discusses the ideal of goodness or Tightness, 
 and is not directly concerned with the means by which 
 this ideal may be realised. 
 
 Ethics, then, though a normative science, is not to be 
 regarded as a practical science. f 
 
 4. ETHICS NOT AN ART. If Ethics is not strictly to 
 be classed as a practical science, it ought still less to 
 be described as an art. Yet the question has sometimes 
 been raised, with regard both to Logic and to Ethics, 
 whether both these departments of study are not rather 
 of the nature of arts than of sciences, 2 since they have 
 both a certain reference to practice. Logic has some- 
 times been called the Art of Thinking, 3 and though 
 Ethics has perhaps never been described as the Art of 
 Conduct, yet it has often been treated as if it were di- 
 rectly concerned with that art. Now, it may be ques 
 tioned whether it is quite correct to speak of an art of 
 thinking or of an art of conduct at all. This is a ques- 
 tion to which we shall shortly return. But at any rate 
 it is now generally recognized that it is best to treat 
 
 1 The extent to which it may be regarded as bearing on practice 
 Is discussed below, Book II., chap. vii. All the statements made in 
 the present chapter must be regarded as provisional 
 
 * Cf. Welton's Manual of Logic, vol. i. p. 12. 
 
 This was, in particular, the title of the Port Royal Logie.
 
 4-] THE SCOPE OF ETHICS. II 
 
 both Logic and Ethics as having no direct bearing upon 
 these arts. It may be well, however, to notice the 
 reasons which have led to the view that these sciences 
 are of the nature of arts. 
 
 In the case of every practical science, the question is 
 apt to present itself, whether we are really concerned 
 with a science at all or rather with an art. And the 
 answer seems to be, that if we insist on drawing an abso- 
 lute distinction between a science and an art, a practical 
 science must be regarded as lying midway between 
 them. A science, it is said, teaches us to know, and an 
 art to do ; l but a practical science teaches us to know 
 how to do. Since, however, such a science is primarily 
 concerned with the communication of knowledge, it is 
 more properly to be described as a science than as an 
 art ; but it is a kind of science that has a very direct 
 relation to a corresponding art. There is scarcely any 
 art that is not indirectly related to a great number of 
 different sciences. The art of painting, for instance, 
 may derive useful lessons from the sciences of optics, 
 anatomy, botany, geology, and a great variety of 
 others. The art of navigation, in like manner, is much 
 aided by the sciences of astronomy, magnetism, 
 acoustics, hydrostatics, and many more. But such 
 relationships are comparatively indirect. The depend- 
 ence of an art upon its corresponding practical science 
 is of a very much closer character. The art of rhetoric 
 is a direct application of the science of rhetoric, so far 
 as there is any such science ; and the art of fencing, of 
 the science of fencing. Indeed, if a practical science 
 could be completely worked out into all its details, the 
 
 1 Cf. Jevons's Elementary Logic, p. 7 ; Welton's Manual of Logic, 
 i ol i. p. '2 ; Mill's Logic, Introductioa
 
 12 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. I. 
 
 art corresponding to it would contain nothing which is 
 not included in the science. Perhaps this is the case 
 with such an art as that of fencing. Still, even here the 
 science and the art are clearly distinguishable. A man 
 may be quite familiar with the science, and yet not be 
 skilled in the art ; and vice versa. But in most cases 
 the distinction is even more marked than this : for the 
 art usually includes a great deal that we are not able 
 to reduce to science at all. Indeed, some arts are so 
 entirely dependent on the possession of a peculiar 
 knack or dexterity, or of a peculiar kind of genius, that 
 'they can scarcely be said to have any science corre- 
 sponding to them at all. Thus, for example, there is 
 no science of cookery, there is no science of sleight- 
 of-hand, there is no science of making jokes, and there 
 is no science of poetry. 1 
 
 Now there is no doubt a sense in which conduct, as 
 well as thinking, may be said to be an art.' Both of 
 these are activities presupposing certain natural gifts, 
 proceeding upon certain principles, and made perfect 
 by practice. But such an art as either of these seems 
 clearly to be one that cannot be subjected to exact 
 scientific treatment. Men of moral genius and large 
 experience of life may communicate the fruits of their 
 
 i Poetry used to be known as " the gay science ; " but the word 
 " science " is here used in the sense of "art" The failure to distin 
 guish between these two terms has given rise to much confusion. 
 Thus, when Carlyle called political economy "the dismal science," 
 he meant to contrast it with poetry. But it is now generally recog- 
 nized that political economy is a science in the stricter sense, though 
 partly a practical science, and is not to be classed with arts like 
 poetry. 
 
 A recent book by Mr. N. P. Oilman and Mr. E. P. Jackson, is en- 
 titled Conduct as a Fine Art; but this reminds one somewhat of DC 
 Quincey'g essay on " Murder regarded as one of the Fine Arts."
 
 5-] THE SCOPE OF ETHICS. 1$ 
 
 experience to mankind, and may thus be said to in- 
 struct them in the art of conduct. But it is certainly 
 not the business of a student of ethical science as such 
 to be a prophet or preacher. Even if Ethics were in 
 the strict sense a practical science, it could still only 
 deal with the general principles involved in human ac- 
 tion. But action itself is concerned with the particular, 
 which can never be exhausted by general principles. 
 For the communication of the art of conduct "ex- 
 ample is better than precept," and experience is better 
 than either ; so that even if it were the business of 
 Ethics to lay down precepts (*'. e. if it were a practical 
 science), these precepts would still not suffice for in- 
 struction in the art of life. But as Ethics is a norma- 
 tive, rather than a practical, science, it is not even its 
 primary business to lay down precepts at all, but rather 
 to define the ideal involved in life. How far the defini- 
 tion of this ideal may lead on to practical precepts, is 
 a matter for future consideration. 
 
 5. Is THERE ANY ART OF CONDUCT ? We may, how- 
 ever, proceed further, and ask whether it is strictly 
 legitimate to speak of an Art of Conduct at all. A 
 little consideration suffices to show that such a con- 
 ception is in the highest degree questionable. No 
 doubt the term Art may be used in somewhat different 
 senses. The Industrial Arts are not quite of the same 
 nature as the Fine Arts. The former are directed to 
 the production of objects useful for some ulterior end ; 
 whereas the objects produced by the latter are rather 
 ends in themselves. But in both cases there is a defi- 
 nite product which it is the object of the Art to bring 
 forth. Now in the case of morality, at least on * 
 prima facie view, this is not true. There is no product
 
 14 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. I, 
 
 \n this case, but only an activity. Of course it may 
 be said that the activity is valued with reference to a 
 certain ultimate end, i. e. to the summum bonunt. How 
 far this is true, we shall have to consider in the course 
 of our study ; but it would, at any rate, be mislead- 
 ing at the outset to think of conduct as being of the 
 same nature as the Arts, whether Industrial or Ex- 
 pressive. It may be convenient to sum up the dif- 
 ferences in the following way. 
 
 (i) Virtue exists only in activity. A good painter is 
 one who can paint beautifully : a good man is not one 
 who can, but one who does, act rightly. The good 
 painter is good when he is asleep or on a journey, or 
 when, for any other reason, he is not employed in his 
 art. ' The good man is not good when asleep or on a 
 journey, unless when it is good to sleep or to go on a 
 journey. Goodness is not a capacity or potentiality, 
 but an activity ; in Aristotelian language, it is not a 
 dvvaius, but an Ivip^eta. 
 
 This is a simple point, and yet it is a point that pre- 
 sented great difficulty to ancient philosophers. By 
 nothing perhaps were they so much misled as by 
 
 i Cf. Aristotle's Ethics, I. viii. <ji Of course, we judge the goodness 
 of a painter by the work that he does ; but the point is that he may 
 cease to act without ceasing to be a skilled artist A good painter 
 may decide to paint no more ; but a good man cannot decide to re- 
 tire from the life of virtuous activity, or even to take a rest from it 
 There are no holidays from virtue. Charles Lamb, indeed, has 
 suggested that a leading element in the enjoyment of certain forms 
 of Comedy consists in the fact that they free us from the burden of 
 our habitual moral consciousness. This may be true ; but if any 
 one were to seek for a holiday by actually practising the modes of 
 life depicted in these Comedies, he would, so far, hav cesued to b 
 virtuous.
 
 5.] THE SCOPE OF ETHICS. 1$ 
 
 the analogy of virtue to the arts. 1 Thus in Plato's 
 Republic, Socrates is represented as arguing that if 
 justice consists in keeping property safe, the just man 
 must be a kind of thief ; for the same kind of skill which 
 enables a man to defend property, will also enable him 
 to steal it. a The answer to this is, that justice is not a 
 kind of skill, but a kind of activity. The just man is 
 not merely one who can, but one who does, keep pro- 
 perty safe. Now though the capacity of preserving 
 property may be identical with the capacity of appro- 
 priating it, the act of preserving is certainly very dif- 
 ferent from the act of appropriating. The man who 
 knows precisely what the truth about any matter is, 
 would undoubtedly, as a general rule, be the most 
 competent person to invent lies with respect to the 
 same matter. Yet the truth-speaker and the liar are 
 very different persons ; because they are not merely 
 men who possess particular kinds of capacity, but men 
 who act in particular ways. Often, indeed, the most 
 atrocious liars have no special capacity for the art 
 And so also it is with other vices. "The Devil," it is 
 said, "is an Ass." 
 
 (2) The Essence of Virtue lies in the Will. The man 
 who is a bungler in any of the particular arts may be 
 a very worthy and well-meaning person ; but the best 
 intentions in the world will not make him a good 
 artist. In the case of virtuous action, on the other 
 hand, as Kant says, 3 " a good will is good not because 
 
 1 This does not apply to Aristotle. See the passage referred to in 
 the preceding note. 
 
 4 Of course, Plato intended this for a joke ; but it is doubtful whether 
 hft knew exactly where the fallacy comes in. 
 
 Metaphysic of Morals, L
 
 l6 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. t 
 
 of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for 
 the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by 
 virtue of the volition." " Even if it should happen 
 that, owing to a special disfavour of fortune, or the 
 niggardly provision of a step-motherly nature, this will 
 should wholly lack power to accomplish its purpose, 
 if with its greatest efforts it should yet achieve nothing, 
 and there should remain only the good will (not, to be 
 sure, a mere wish, but the summoning of all means in 
 our power), then, like a jewel, it would still shine by 
 its own light, as a thing which has its whole value in 
 itself." In like manner, Aristotle says * of a good man 
 living in circumstances in which he cannot find scope 
 for his highest virtues, Scaldfixet TO xattv, "his nobility 
 shines through." It is true that even in the fine arts 
 purpose counts for something; and a stammering 
 utterance may be not without a grace of its own. 3 In 
 conduct also, if a man blunders entirely, we generally 
 assume that there was some flaw in his purpose 
 that he did not reflect sufficiently, or did not will the 
 good with sufficient intensity. Still, the distinction 
 remains, that in art the ultimate appeal is to the work 
 achieved, whereas in morals the ultimate appeal is to 
 the inner aim. Or rather, in morals the achievement 
 
 i Ethics, I. x iz 
 
 * Cf. Browning's Andrea del Sarto : 
 
 " That arm is wrongly put and there again 
 A fault to pardon in the drawing's lines, 
 Its body, so to speak : its soul is right, 
 He means right that, a child may understand." 
 Bat here Art is being judged almost from an ethical, rather than 
 from a purely aesthetical point of view. " He means right," is not an 
 JBSthetical judgment, (though, of course, the distinction between 
 body' and 'soul' i. & technique and expression docs belong to 
 .Esthetics).
 
 6.] THE SCOPE OF ETHICS. I/ 
 
 cannot be distinguished from the inner activity by 
 which it is brought about. ' 
 
 6. Is THERE ANY SCIENCE OF CONDUCT? The fact 
 that it is somewhat questionable to speak of an Art of 
 Conduct suggests a doubt whether it is even quite 
 proper to speak of a Science of Conduct. We generally 
 understand by a science the study of some limited 
 portion of our experience. Now in dealing with morals 
 we are concerned rather with the whole of our ex- 
 perience from one particular point of view, viz., from 
 the point of view of activity i. e. from the point of 
 view of the pursuit of ends or ideals. Matthew Arnold 
 has said that "Conduct is three-fourths of life;" but 
 of course, from the point of view of purposive activity, 
 conduct is the whole of life. It is common to dis- 
 tinguish the pursuit of truth (science) and the pursuit 
 of beauty (fine art) from the moral life in the narrower 
 sense ; but when truth and beauty are regarded as 
 ends to be attained, the pursuit of them is a kind of 
 conduct ; and the consideration of these ends, as of 
 all others, falls within the scope of the science of 
 morals. In a sense, therefore, Ethics is not a science 
 at all, if by a science we understand the study of some 
 limited department of human experience. It is rather 
 a part of philosophy, i. e. a part of the study of ex- 
 perience as a whole. It is, indeed, only a part of 
 philosophy ; because it considers the experience of life 
 only from the point of view of will or activity. It 
 does not, except indirectly, consider man as knowing 
 or enjoying, but as doing, i. e. pursuing an end. 
 But it considers man's whole activity, the entire nature 
 
 1 This point is more fully brought out in Book I., chap, ti 
 
 J
 
 1 8 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. I. 
 
 of the good which he seeks, and the whole significance 
 of his activity in seeking it. For this reason some 
 writers prefer to describe the subject as Moral Philoso- 
 phy or Ethical Philosophy, rather than as the Science 
 of Ethics. For it is the business of Philosophy, rather 
 than of Science, to deal with experience as a whole. 
 Similarly, Logic and ^Esthetics, the two sciences which 
 most closely resemble Ethics, are rather philosophical 
 than scientific. But the term Science may be used in 
 a wide sense to include the philosophical studies as 
 well as those that are called scientific in the narrower 
 sense. In the next chapter we must endeavour to 
 explain more definitely the place of Ethics among the 
 other departments of knowledge. 
 
 7. SUMMARY. The statements in this chapter are 
 intended to give a general indication of the nature of 
 ethical science. The student ought to be warned, 
 however, that different writers regard the subject in 
 different ways. Some regard it as having a directly 
 practical aim, while others endeavour to treat it as a 
 purely theoretical science, in the same sense in which 
 chemistry or astronomy is purely theoretical. I have 
 adopted a middle course, by describing it as normative. 
 But the full significance of this difference, as well as 
 the grounds for adopting one or other of these views, 
 can hardly become apparent to the student until he has 
 learned to appreciate the distinction between the lead- 
 ing theories of the moral standard. In fact, in studying 
 Ethics, as in studying most other subjects of any com- 
 plexity, it should always be borne in mind that the defi- 
 nition of the subject and the understanding of its scope 
 and method come rather at the end than at the begin- 
 ning. With these cautions, however, the student may
 
 7-] THE SCOPE OF ETHICS. 19 
 
 perhaps find the remarks made in this chapter of some 
 service as an introduction to the study. 
 
 The main points may be summed up in this way : 
 
 (1) Ethics is the science which deals with the Ideal, 
 or with the Standard of Rightness and Wrongness, Good 
 and Evil, involved in Conduct. 
 
 (2) This science is normative, not one of the ordinary 
 Positive Sciences. 
 
 (3) It is, however, not properly to be described as a 
 Practical Science, though it has a close bearing upon 
 practical life. 
 
 (4) Still less is it to be described as an Art 
 
 (5) It is hardly correct to speak of an Art of Conduct 
 at all. 
 
 (6) Some objection may also be taken even to the 
 term Science of Conduct, since the study of the Ideal 
 in Conduct is rather philosophical than scientific.
 
 20 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. L 
 
 NOTE ON POSITIVE AND NORMATIVE SCIENCES. 
 
 It may be well to warn the student, more fully than could well b 
 done in the text, that the convenient distinction, here adopted, be- 
 tween positive and normative sciences, is not to be taken as an ab- 
 solute one ; still less, as exhaustive. On reflection, the student will 
 no doubt find that many sciences which are essentially positive have 
 in them elements that are of a normative character. In illustration 
 of this, we might refer to the saying of the astronomer, who was 
 questioned about the way in which the planets move : " I know 
 nothing about the way in which the planets move ; I only know 
 how the planets ought to move if there are any planets ! " This is, 
 of course, a paradox ; but it may serve to bring out the truth that 
 much of what is contained even in the positive sciences depends 
 on the consideration of ideal standards. Again, the student who 
 pursues the study of metaphysics will soon find that there is a 
 sense in which even such principles as the law of causation may be 
 said, as Kant put it, to be prescribed to nature. Further, there is a 
 sense in which even purely normative sciences may be said to deal 
 with what is. Logic is said to be concerned with correct thinking ; 
 but there is a very true sense in which it may be held that incorrect 
 thinking is not thought ; so that, from this point of view, Logic may 
 be said to be concerned with the principles of thought as thought 
 Similarly, it might perhaps be urged that an object which is not ap- 
 preciated as beautiful is not really appreciated ; and that an action 
 which is not good is not, in the full sense of the word, an action. 
 Hence, the distinction between positive and normative sciences is 
 one that may require, to a large extent, to be thrown aside as the 
 student advances. It is one of those convenient distinctions (like 
 that between sense and thought, knowing and willing, matter and 
 spirit, etc.) which require to be drawn at the outset, but which may 
 be gradually superseded. It remains true, however, that the ordi- 
 nary concrete sciences, like botany or physiology, 1 make it their main 
 aim to co-ordinate particular facts of experience, while logic and 
 ethics deal essentially with standards of judgment It would ob- 
 viously be far beyond the scope of such a work as this to attempt any 
 
 1 In the case of physiology, this statement is open to some qualifi- 
 cation, in so far as physiology makes it its business to itudy the 
 normal action of vital functions.
 
 THE SCOPE OF ETHICS. 21 
 
 exhaustive classification of the sciences ; but perhaps the following 
 list may serve, roughly, to indicate the relations in which they 
 stand to one another. 
 
 (1) The ordinary concrete sciences, e.g. botany, biology, anatomy, 
 geology, &c. Of these it is on the whole true to say that they deal 
 with particular classes of facts, and try to co-ordinate them. 
 
 (2) The ordinary abstract sciences, such as mathematics, mechan- 
 ics, the more theoretical parts of astronomy, &c. These sciences also 
 aim at the elucidation of facts ; but, in order to elucidate them, they 
 make use of hypothetical constructions, often involving a reference 
 to ideal standards as, in mathematics, the standard of a perfectly 
 straight line, and the like. 1 
 
 (3) The normative sciences, such as logic, aesthetics, ethics, which 
 deal definitely rather with standards of judgment than with parti- 
 cular facts. 
 
 (4) The practical sciences, such as medicine, architecture, rhetoric, 
 &c., which apply standards of judgment to the formulation of prin- 
 ciples of action. All normative sciences are capable of being made 
 practical when they are thus applied. 
 
 Arts, properly so called, seek to carry out certain forms of activity 
 for the production of certain results. They depend on the principles 
 laid down by the practical sciences, but generally depend on more 
 than one of them. 
 
 It should also be carefully borne in mind that often what is com- 
 monly regarded as a single science may include elements which, if 
 taken by themselves, would refer it alternately to several, or perhaps 
 all, of the above classes. Thus Political Economy is a positive 
 science in so far as it deals with the facts of commercial life, and 
 seeks to co-ordinate them in so far, that is to say, as it is dealt with 
 historically and concretely. It is, however, an abstract science, in 
 so far as it deals with hypothetical conditions, such as that of perfectly 
 free competition, and seeks to show what would follow from these con- 
 ditions. It is a normative science, in so far as it seeks to establish an 
 
 1 It may perhaps be of some assistance to the student to point out 
 that the names of the more purely positive sciences generally end 
 in " logy " geology, biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, 
 &c. ; while those of the more abstract and normative (i. e. those 
 that are, in some sense, concerned with standards or ideals) generally 
 end in "ic" or " ics "mathematics, mechanics, logic, aesthetics, 
 ethics, &c. But this is only roughly true, Cf. Giddings's Principles 
 of Sociology, p. 5a
 
 22 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. I. 
 
 Ideal standard, such as that of industrial freedom, to which the facts 
 of the commercial life ought to conform. It is a practical science 
 when it uses this standard to guide the statesman, the man of busi- 
 ness, the workman, or the social reformer. When, finally, these 
 various people make use of it, under the guidance of common sense, 
 it becomes an art ; and the carrying of it into effect in this way in- 
 volves various other forms of knowledge, as well as the knowledge 
 of the particular science in question.* 
 
 It thus appears that sciences cannot be quite so simply arranged as 
 the student might perhaps be led to suppose from the statements in 
 the text The broad distinction, however, between the positive and 
 the normative between that in which the ultimate reference is to a 
 particular class of facts, and that in which the ultimate reference is 
 to an ideal standard, is all that is of special importance for our pres- 
 ent purpose. If the student will bear in mind the two sciences with 
 which, from his previous study, he is probably most likely to be 
 familiar, Psychology and Logic, he will find in them two very per- 
 fect types of the distinction in question. Psychology deals with the 
 facts of consciousness ; Logic deals with the standard of correctness. 
 
 1 Cf. Keynes's Scope and Method of Political Economy, pp. 34-361
 
 I.] RELATION TO OTHER SCIENCES. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE RELATION OF ETHICS TO OTHER SCIENCES. 
 
 1. GENERAL STATEMENT. From what has already 
 been stated, it appears that Ethics is to be regarded as 
 belonging to the group of sciences that are called 
 philosophic. Now the question as to the general 
 nature and divisions of philosophic study is to some 
 extent controversial ; and of course it is beyond our 
 present scope to enter on any discussion of this 
 question ; but perhaps the student may find the follow- 
 ing statements helpful and not very misleading. He 
 may correct them for himself, if necessary, as he ad- 
 vances in the study of philosophy. 
 
 Philosophy is the study of the nature of experience as 
 a whole.// The particular sciences investigate particular 
 portions of the content of our experience ; but philo- 
 sophy seeks to understand the whole in the light of its 
 central principles. In order to do this, it endeavours to 
 analyze the various elements that enter into the con- 
 stitution of the world as we know it. This part of the 
 investigation is perhaps that which is most properly 
 described as Epistemology. Next we may go on to 
 trace the genesis of the various elements that constitute 
 our experience to examine, that is to say, the process 
 by which experience grows up in the consciousness of 
 individuals and races. This is. the task of Psychology. 
 Now, when we thus examine our experience and trace 
 
 ' - **-
 
 24 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. II. 
 
 its growth, it is found that the content which is thus 
 brought to light consists partly of facts presented in 
 various ways before our consciousness and partly of 
 ideals. The study of llio particular facts that come 
 before our consciousness has to be handed over to the 
 particular sciences ; or, in so far as philosophy is able to 
 deal with them, they form the content of what is called 
 the Philosophy of Nature. The ideals, again, which 
 emerge in our experience, are found to be three in 
 number, corresponding, it would seem, to the Know- 
 ing, the Feeling, and the Willing sides of our conscious 
 nature. They are the ideals of Truth, Beauty, and 
 Goodness. The study of these ideals forms the subject- 
 matter of the three sciences of Logic, Esthetics, and 
 Ethics. Finally the question arises with respect to the 
 kind and degree of reality possessed by these various 
 elements in our experience. This inquiry is that which 
 is properly known as Ontology. The first and the last 
 of these departments of study Epistemology and Onto- 
 logy tend to coalesce ; and the two together con- 
 stitute what is commonly known as Metaphysics, which 
 thus forms the Alpha and the Omega of the philoso- 
 phical sciences. 
 
 From this it will be seen that Ethics stands, along 
 with Logic and Esthetics, midway between Psycho- 
 logy and Metaphysics ; and, in fact, whatever may be 
 thought of the foregoing method of stating the relation- 
 ship, it is generally recognized that there is a very close 
 connection between Ethics and each of these two other 
 philosophical sciences. 
 
 Further consideration, however, reveals a variety of 
 other subjects to which Ethics is closely related. On 
 some it is dependent for materials, to others it supplies
 
 2.] RELATION TO OTHER SCIENCES. 2$ 
 
 assistance. It may be well to try to bring out a little 
 more in detail some of these relationships, though of 
 course it is only possible to indicate them here very 
 briefly. 
 
 2. PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND ETHICS. The relation of , 
 Physical Science to Ethics is but slight. It has some- 
 times been supposed that the question of physical^ 
 causation has an important bearing on Ethics. It has 
 been thought that morality postulates the freedom of 
 the will, and that there is a certain conflict between 
 this postulate and the theory of the universal applica- 
 bility of the law of cause and effect. This point will 
 be referred to in a subsequent chapter. In the mean- 
 time it must suffice to say that the supposition of such 
 a conflict appears to rest upon a misconception. 
 
 Of course, Ethics is indirectly related to Physical 
 Science, inasmuch as a knowledge of physical laws 
 enables us to predict, more accurately and certainly 
 than we should otherwise be able to do, what the effect 
 of various kinds of conduct will be. But this knowl- 
 edge affects only the details of conduct, not the general 
 principles by which our conduct is guided. A wise 
 man in modern times will be less afraid of the sea and 
 of the stars, and more afraid of foul air and impure 
 water, than a man of similar wisdom in ancient times ; 
 but the general consideration of the question, what 
 kinds of things we ought to fear, and what kinds we 
 ought not to fear, need not be affected by this differ- 
 ence in detail, which is due to the advance of know- 
 ledge. Physical Science in short is chiefly useful to 
 Ethics in the way of helping us to understand the 
 environment within which the moral life is passed, 
 father than the nature of the moral life itself.
 
 26 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. IL 
 
 3. BIOLOGY AND ETHICS. The relation of Biology to 
 Ethics is much closer than that of Physics or Chemistry, 
 but is essentially of the same indirect character. Many 
 of the most sacred of human obligations rest on physi- 
 ological considerations ; but the general principles on 
 which these obligations rest can be discussed without 
 any direct reference to physiological details, and would 
 not, in their general principles, be affected by any new 
 physiological discoveries. 
 
 Some recent writers, under the influence of the theory 
 of evolution, 1 have represented the connection of 
 Biology with Ethics as being of a much more fund- 
 amental character than that which has now been in- 
 dicated. It has been thought that the criterion of good 
 or bad conduct is to be found in the tendency to pro- 
 mote the development of life or the reverse ; and that, 
 consequently, we may speak of good or bad conduct 
 in the lowest forms of life in quite the same sense as 
 in man. This is a view to which some reference will 
 have to be made at a later stage. In the meantime it 
 seems sufficient to say that conduct, in the sense in 
 which the term is used in Ethics, has no meaning ex- 
 cept with reference to a being who has a rational will ; 
 and that, in the case of such a being, the development 
 of life is but a subordinate part of the end. Conse- 
 quently, Biology does not appear to have any direct 
 bearing upon Ethics. 2 The study of animal life, how- 
 ever, does throw a good deal of light on the develop- 
 ment of the moral consciousness ; but it does this only 
 
 i See especially Spencer's Principles of Ethics. 
 
 * It is only in so far as we attribute some form of self-conscious, 
 ness to the lower animals that we are entitled to speak of M sub 
 human " Ethics. Cf. Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, p. 212, note, and 
 tec below. Book I., chap, iii, 3.
 
 4-] RELATION TO OTHER SCIENCES. 2? 
 
 In so far as animal life is studied from the psychological, 
 not from the purely biological, point of view. 
 
 4. PSYCHOLOGY AND ETHICS. The relation of Psy- 
 chology to Ethics is much closer and more important. 
 At the same time, the dependence of the one upon thd 
 other ought not to be exaggerated. As Logic deals 
 with the correctness of thought, so Ethics deals with 
 the correctness of conduct. Neither of them is directly 
 concerned with the process by which we come to think 
 or to act correctly. Still, the processes of feeling, de- 
 siring, and willing cannot be ignored by the student 
 of Ethics ; any more than the processes of general- 
 izing, judging, and reasoning can be ignored by the 
 student of Logic ; and the consideration of all these 
 falls within the province of the psychologist. Psycho- 
 logy, in fact, as I have already tried to indicate, leads 
 up to ethics, as it leads up to Logic and Esthetics. 
 
 In this connection, however, there is another im- 
 portant point to be noticed, to which reference has not 
 yet been made. Human conduct, as we shall find 
 more and more, has a social reference. Most of our 
 actions derive their moral significance very largely from 
 our relations to our fellow-men. Now Psychology, as 
 commonly studied, has but little bearing on this. Psy- 
 chology, as a rule, deals mainly with the growth of the 
 individual consciousness, and only refers indirectly to 
 the facts of social relationship. It is possible, how- 
 ever, to study the process of mental development from 
 a more social point of view. The study of language, 
 for instance, the study of the customs of savage peoples, 
 the study of the growth of institutions, etc., throw 
 light upon the gradual development of the human 
 mind in relation to its social environment. The term
 
 28 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. II. 
 
 Sociology has been used to denote, in a comprehensive 
 way, the study of such social phenomena ; and, from 
 the point of view of Ethics, this study of the facts of 
 mind in relation to society has a more direct interest 
 than purely individual Psychology. 
 
 5. LOGIC, ESTHETICS, AND ETHICS. These three 
 sciences, as I have already pointed out, are essen- 
 tially cognate. They are all normative, not positive : 
 they are concerned, that is to say, not with the inves- 
 tigation of facts and relations between facts, but with 
 the discussion of standards. Logic studies the standard 
 of Truth. It is concerned with the validity of various 
 processes of thought. Esthetics and Ethics, again, may 
 be said to be concerned with value or worth. ^Esthetics 
 considers the standard of Beauty, or as we may perhaps 
 say, worth for feeling. Ethics considers the standard 
 of goodness, ;'. e. value or worth from the point of 
 view of action valour, as we might put it. Validity, 
 Value, Valour, might almost be said to be the subjects of 
 the three sciences ; but this of course is something of a 
 play on words. At any rate they are very closely re- 
 lated to one other. Ethics might almost be described 
 as the Logic of conduct i. e. it considers the condi- 
 tions of the consistency of conduct with the ideal ' in- 
 
 1 As we have had frequent occasion to use this term Ideal, and 
 shall have to use it frequently in the sequel, it may be well to enter 
 a caution at this point against a misconception to which it is liable. 
 An Ideal means a type, model, or standard ; and that which is ideal 
 is that which is normal, that which conforms to its type or standard. 
 The adjective " ideal," however, corresponds to the two nouns 
 " Idea " and " Ideal," and there is a certain ambiguity in its use. As 
 corresponding to "idea" (in the sense made current in English by 
 Locke, Berkeley and Hume) it is apt to be understood as referring to 
 that which is merely fancied, as distinguished from that which 
 exists in fact (The more correct philosophical use, in this sense, is
 
 5-] RELATION OF OTHER SCIENCES. 29 
 
 rolved in it, just as Logic considers the conditions of 
 the consistency of thought with the standards that it 
 implies. Again, the study of the Good is also closely 
 related to the study of the Beautiful. Indeed, so close 
 is the connection between the two conceptions that 
 the Greeks used the same word, TO xaX6v, indifferently 
 to express beauty and moral nobility. The phrase 
 "beauty of holiness " also occurs in Hebrew literature ; 
 and in modern times we sometimes meet with such 
 expressions as "beautiful soul," "a beautiful life," and 
 the like though these expressions generally refer 
 rather to religious piety than to purely moral excellence, 
 and even in that reference strike us perhaps as savour- 
 seen in such phrases as " ideal content," " ideal construction," "ideal 
 synthesis," and the like.) Thus, when Byron speaks of " ideal woe" 
 he means imaginary woe, woe of which the ground is purely fanciful 
 And indeed this meaning clings even to the noun " Ideal," and to 
 "ideal" as an adjective corresponding to that noun. An artist's 
 Ideal is apt to be understood as meaning a type of beauty which is 
 nowhere to be found existing. The ideal, in fact, comes to be un- 
 derstood in the sense of a poetic vision, 
 
 " The light that never was on sea or land, 
 The consecration and the poet's dream," 
 
 In this sense also an Ideal state, like Plato's Republic, is contrasted 
 with actually existing conditions. Now this use of the word is apt 
 to be very misleading in Ethics. In order to avoid such confusion 
 it is well for the student to think of the moral Ideal, not in relation 
 to Ideal States or the artist's Ideal, but rather in relation to the 
 logical Ideal The Ideal of correct thinking is not something in the 
 air, but is something that is realized every time we think at all ; for 
 to think wrongly is to a certain extent not to think. Similarly the 
 moral ideal may be said to be realized every time we truly act It 
 is important that we should get rid of the habit of thinking of the 
 Ideal as something " too good to be true," and learn to think of it 
 rather as the determining principle in reality. (See Hegel's Logic, 
 Wallace's Translation, p. n.) The point of this may become more 
 apparent in the sequel
 
 $O ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. IL 
 
 ing a little of cant I have already indicated that tha 
 Greek philosophers got into some trouble through their 
 failure to distinguish clearly between moral conduct 
 and art ; and the sharper separation in modern times 
 between the two conceptions marks an advance in 
 scientific clearness. When the moral life is regarded 
 as beautiful, it is looked at from a somewhat external 
 point of view, as if it were a result rather than an act 
 of will ; and it was no doubt partly because the Greek* 
 had not fully reached the inner point of view (for which 
 we are largely indebted to Christianity) that they were 
 tempted to regard the moral life as if it were simply an 
 artistic product. When we regard morality as involv- 
 ing a struggle of the will, it can scarcely impress us as 
 beautiful. In .the religious sense also, when we speak 
 of the beauty of holiness, beautiful souls, and beauti- 
 ful lives, we are generally thinking of the persons re- 
 ferred to as if they ' ' flourished " rather than lived, as 
 if they were passive products rather than active pro- 
 ducers. Still, it cannot be denied that the contempla- 
 tion of a life of eminent virtue yields us a certain 
 aesthetic satisfaction ; and from certain points of view 
 it is tempting, even for a modern writer, to regard 
 virtue as a kind of beauty. The consideration of the 
 relation between the Good and the Beautiful is, how- 
 ever, too difficult a subject to be taken up at this point ; 
 and we must, at any rate, reserve the discussion of it 
 for the present 
 
 6. METAPHYSICS AND ETHICS. The consideration of 
 validity and value leads inevitably to the problem of 
 reality. In the case of thought we may be satisfied 
 for a time with the mere consideration of its formal 
 self-consistency. But this is soon found to be unsatia-
 
 7-] RELATION TO OTHER SCIENCES. 3! 
 
 factory ; and we pass on, as in what is called Inductive 
 Logic, to the question of the conditions of the consist- 
 ency of thought with the facts of nature. This again 
 leads us on to the discussion of the ultimate nature of 
 reality. Similarly, in dealing with the Beautiful, we 
 may at first be content to regard it as the pleasant ; but 
 we are soon led to inquire how far the pleasantness 
 of objects is illusory and how far it rests upon their 
 essential nature. Thus in both these cases we are led 
 on into metaphysical inquiries. So it is in the case of 
 Ethics. When we ask what constitutes the value or 
 active worth of human life we are soon led into the 
 question of the essential nature of human personality 
 and its place in the universe of actual existence. It is 
 possible, no doubt, to proceed a certain length in Logic, 
 ./Esthetics, and Ethics without insisting upon an answer 
 to the ultimate problems of ontology ; but they all lead 
 us on inevitably into these problems. 
 
 7. ETHICS AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. So far we 
 have been referring to the sciences upon which Ethics 
 may be said to rest. We have now to notice depart- 
 ments of study which rest upon Ethics. These may 
 all be brought under the general heading of political or 
 social Philosophy. As I have already remarked, the 
 study of conduct leads us inevitably into the study 
 of social life. An entirely solitary human being is in- 
 conceivable. A man is always a member of some 
 kind of community. As Aristotle said, he is a poli- 
 tical animal (nohruov Cv). Hence the science of 
 Ethics is very closely related to that of Politics. We 
 cannot well consider the virtues of the individual with- 
 out considering also the society to which he is related, 
 and the ways in which it may help or hinder the devel-
 
 32 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. ii 
 
 opment of his life. The ideal also which we lay down 
 for the individual will necessarily suggest an ideal 
 arrangement of society, which will be best fitted to 
 enable the individual to realize his highest aims. For 
 this reason, Aristotle even went so far as to say that 
 Ethics is essentially a part of Politics. If we accept 
 this statement, however, we must employ the term 
 Politics in a very wide sense. In this wide sense it is 
 perhaps better to use the term Social Philosophy. But 
 even in the narrower sense of the term, it is evident 
 that the relation of Ethics to Politics must be a very 
 intimate one. 1 
 
 8. ETHICS AND ECONOMICS. Among the departments 
 of Political Philosophy to which Ethics is thus closely 
 related there is one to which great importance has been 
 attached in recent times the science of Political Econ- 
 omy. Economics, like Ethics, is concerned with goods, 
 i. e. with things having value with reference to certain 
 human ends. But while the goods with which Ethics 
 deals are those acts which are the conditions of the 
 attainment of the highest end of life, economic goods 
 are merely those objects which are the means of sat- 
 isfying any human want. It follows that if we are 
 really to understand the worth of economic goods, we 
 must consider them in close relation to the ethical 
 good. Food, for instance, clothing, house room, and 
 the like, are economic goods ; and they serve a variety 
 of purposes the support of life, the development of 
 life, the prolongation of life, the promotion of enjoy- 
 ment, the attainment of independence, the furtherance 
 of peace, decency, and security, and so on. And the 
 
 i C/. Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, p. 40 sqq* and sec below, 
 Book III., chaps. L and ii.
 
 9-] RELATION TO OTHER SCIENCES. 33 
 
 worth of the goods will depend on the importance of 
 these ends. Now the importance of these ends can 
 be ascertained only by observing their relation to the 
 supreme end of our lives. Hence a certain knowledge 
 of Ethics is presupposed in the intelligent study of 
 Economics. This truth has frequently been overlooked. 
 The study of Economics has too often been conducted 
 in such a way as to suggest that Wealth is an end in 
 itself; and this has had the practical result of retarding 
 social reforms, and encouraging those who are already 
 too much prepared to pursue riches at any price. For 
 this reason some of the leading writers on Political 
 Economy have been severely criticised by Carlyle and 
 Ruskin a*nd other moralists ; and it is now generally 
 recognized that the two sciences of Ethics and Econo- 
 mics must be brought into closer relationship to one 
 another, at least if Economics is to be treated as, in 
 any degree, normative and practical. J 
 
 9. ETHICS AND PEDAGOGICS. Ethics ought also to 
 throw an important light on the science of Education. 
 The reader has probably already discovered, from his 
 previous course of philosophic study, that the science 
 of psychology has a good deal to say that bears on 
 Education. Psychology, however, is chiefly con- 
 cerned with the various capacities of the human mind 
 and the method of their development. The light 
 which it throws on mental Education is similar to that 
 which is thrown by physiology on physical Education. 
 The question as to what qualities it is most desirable 
 
 this subject, cf. Keynes's Scope and Melhod of Political Econ- 
 omy, chap. ii. For a more extreme view, see Devas's Political 
 Economy, Book IV., chap. v. Cf. International Journal of Ethics, 
 Vol. III., no. 3, and VoL VII., no. 2. 
 
 Eth. j
 
 34 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. II. 
 
 to evoke and strengthen must obviously depend on 
 our view of the qualities which the good citizen ought 
 to possess, and generally on our view of the nature of 
 the ethical end. ' 
 
 10. CONCLULING REMARK. These notes on the 
 relationship between Ethics and other sciences are 
 necessarily somewhat fragmentary, and perhaps the 
 student may not find them very enlightening, especi- 
 ally at the beginning of his course. They may serve, 
 however, to indicate the wider bearings of the science, 
 and to prepare the way for the consideration of the 
 divisions into which the study of it naturally falls. 
 Possibly also if the student will return upon this 
 chapter, after having gone through the body of the 
 treatise, he may then be better able to appreciate the 
 points to which reference has here been made. 
 
 1 Mrs. Bryant has written a valuable book on Educational Ends 
 which brings out with considerable fulness the bearing of ethical 
 considerations on the subject of Education. Similarly, Milton's 
 Tractate on Education is written throughout with reference to an 
 ethical ideal. Cf. also Bacon's De Augmenhs, Book VII. and many 
 other works of a similar character. The recent book by Professor 
 MacCunn on The Making of Character is now probably the best work 
 we have in English on th ethical aspects of Education.
 
 I.] THE DIVISIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 3$ 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE DIVISIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 1. GENERAL REMARKS. If we adhered quite rigidly 
 to the view of Ethics put forward in the first chapter, 
 it would hardly be necessary to introduce any divisions 
 in the treatment of it. It would all be concerned with 
 the definition of the moral ideal, the analysis of what 
 is involved in it, and the consideration of its validity ; 
 and this would practically be but a single inquiry. 
 But it is hardly possible to limit the subject in this 
 rigid way.' There are a number of considerations 
 which, on a strict view, might be held not properly 
 to belong to Ethics, but which are so essential to the 
 understanding of it that it is hardly possible to omit 
 them from any book dealing comprehensively with the 
 subject. The nature of these outlying considerations 
 has been partly indicated in the foregoing chapter; 
 but we have now to notice more precisely the way in 
 which they tend to break up the study of Ethics into 
 different departments. 
 
 In the first place, it is necessary to give some atten- 
 tion to the psychological aspects of the subject The 
 consideration of the nature of Feeling, Desire, Will, of 
 the meaning and place of Motives and Intentions in 
 the individual consciousness, of the origin and nature 
 f conscience, of the elements contained in the moral
 
 3$ ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. IIL 
 
 judgment, and other problems of a similar character, 
 is an almost indispensable preliminary to the study of 
 the moral ideal. Again, the treatment of these psycho- 
 logical questions naturally leads us on to the more 
 sociological aspects of the subject, i. e. to the study of 
 the way in which the moral consciousness grows up 
 in mankind in relation to the general development of 
 civilization in its various aspects. These genetical in- 
 quiries lead us on to the consideration of the nature 
 and significance of the moral ideal. But even the treat- 
 ment of this is necessarily to some extent historical. 
 It is hardly possible, at the present stage of the develop- 
 ment of ethical study, to lay down the one view that 
 is to be accepted as correct, without reference to the 
 various more or less incorrect opinions that have been 
 current in the course of ethical speculation. Having 
 considered these and formed our view as to the 
 general nature of the doctrine that is to be taken as 
 true, we are then able, finally, to consider the applica- 
 tion of this doctrine to the treatment of the concrete 
 facts of the moral life. In this way there are at least 
 four main divisions of the study : (i) The Psycho- 
 logy of the Moral Consciousness, (2) The Sociology 
 of the Moral Lite, (3) The Theories of the Moral 
 Standard, (4) The Application of the Standard to the 
 treatment of the Moral Life. A part dealing with the 
 Metaphysics of Ethics might also be added; but this 
 could hardly be separated from the discussion of the 
 Theories of the Moral Standard, which, as we shall see, 
 inevitably leads us into metaphysical considerations. 
 
 A few remarks may now be made on each of these 
 divisions of the subject. 
 
 8. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF ETHICS. Most
 
 3-] THE DIVISIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 37 
 
 of the points that fall under this head are discussed in 
 treatises on Psychology, where they are more strictly 
 in place. But it is found convenient in ethical works 
 to recall some of the more important considerations on 
 the subject of Desire and Will, in particular, and also 
 to deal with the nature of conscience and the moral 
 judgment, which are apt to be passed over somewhat 
 slightly in purely psychological discussions. The 
 bearing of such questions as that of the freedom of the 
 Will on the moral judgment has also to be considered ; 
 and, though this is partly a metaphysical question, yet 
 it is on the whole the psychological aspect of it that 
 more directly concerns Ethics. It is, however, the 
 more social aspects of Psychology with which Ethics 
 is most intimately connected, and we are thus led to 
 the second division of the subject. 
 
 3. THE SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF ETHICS. The sci- 
 ence of Sociology is still in its infancy, and it is perhaps 
 premature to state precisely what it would contain ; 
 but we may say of it generally that it is nothing more 
 than an extension of psychology to the consideration 
 of the more social aspects of life. Such a considera- 
 tion has reference to much that has very little bearing 
 on Ethics. When we study the life of savage peoples, 
 the primitive facts of language, the early religious 
 ideas, the superstitious practices, the beginnings of 
 law and government, our interest is directed to many 
 points that do not much concern the Tightness and 
 wrongness of conduct. All these things, however, 
 are modes of conduct, or tend to affect conduct ; 
 and it is possible to study them from this point of view. 
 Also the tendency to pass judgment upon these and 
 other forms of activity, as being right or wrong, good
 
 38 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. III. 
 
 or evil, begins at a very early stage in the development 
 of the human race; and the way in which this judg- 
 ment grows up is one of the most interesting points 
 in the study of Sociology. All this is hardly to be 
 described as Ethics in the stricter sense ; but it is an 
 almost indispensable preparation for the study of 
 ethical problems. 
 
 4. THE THEORIES OF THE MORAL STANDARD. The 
 study of Ethics in the stricter sense commences with the 
 consideration of the nature of the Ideal, Standard, or 
 End, by reference to which Conduct is pronounced to be 
 right or wrong, good or evil. Now there are several 
 different theories on this subject ; and, though some 
 of these theories are now generally admitted to have 
 been superseded, yet the leading types of theory can- 
 not well be neglected, the more so as these leading 
 types are seldom wholly erroneous, but nearly always 
 bring out some important aspect of the subject. At 
 the same time, the student should be warned against 
 the common error of supposing that these controver- 
 sies about the definition of the Standard, often rather 
 futile and involving a good deal of misunderstanding 
 on all sides, constitute the whole, or even the main 
 part, of ethical doctrine. In order to guard against 
 such a misconception, it is important to pass on to the 
 consideration of the way in which ethical principles 
 may be used in the treatment of the concrete moral 
 life, even if the discussion of this subject is inevitably 
 of a very summary and incomplete character. 
 
 5. THE CONCRETE MORAL LIFE. It will be found 
 that the exact way in which the concrete moral life is 
 to be handled by ethical science depends to a consider- 
 able extent on the nature of the theory which we finally
 
 5-] THE DIVISIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 39 
 
 adopt. If, for instance, we were to take the view that 
 the moral standard consists in certain absolute and 
 immutable laws which are intuitively known to every 
 developed consciousness, the study of the concrete 
 moral life could have little more than a historical 
 interest. We should only be able to discover that at 
 certain periods the nature of the moral laws has been 
 obscured, for various reasons, from the consciousness 
 of the majority of the human race ; and that at other 
 times the laws, though fully recognized, have been 
 very commonly disobeyed. These facts would be of 
 sociological and psychological, rather than of strictly 
 ethical interest. On the other hand, if we should be 
 led to take the view that the moral standard consists 
 in a certain end say, happiness which, though gen- 
 erally pursued by mankind, is not pursued consist- 
 ently or wisely, it would then be possible to point out, 
 at least in general terms, the ways in which improve- 
 ments could be introduced into the concrete moral life 
 of mankind. Rules could be laid down for the more 
 complete and consistent adoption of the right means 
 to the end that we have in view. Or, again, if we 
 accepted the view that the Standard is of the nature of 
 an Ideal that is more or less clearly present through- 
 out the development of the human consciousness, it 
 would then be possible for us to trace the ways in 
 which this Ideal comes into clearness, to point out how 
 it is illustrated in the concrete growth of the moral 
 life, and to indicate to some extent the directions in 
 which we may hope to see it more fully realized. 
 According to the first of these views, the study of the 
 concrete moral life would have hardly any ethical 
 interest According to the second view, the study of
 
 40 ETHICS. [INTROD., CH. IIL 
 
 Ethics would lead directly to certain practical recom- 
 mendations for the remodelling of the concrete moral 
 life. According to the third view, it would be the main 
 business of Ethics to bring out the significance of the 
 moral life in its concrete development, rather than to 
 aim at its reform. Accordingly, it is not possible to 
 decide on the precise way in which this department of 
 the subject should be dealt with, until we have con- 
 sidered the nature of the moral Standard. This portion 
 of the treatment of Ethics is sometimes called Applied 
 Ethics. 
 
 6. PLAN OF THE PRESENT WORK. A complete treatise 
 on the Principles of Ethics would thus, as I conceive, 
 fall naturally into four distinct parts with, possibly, 
 a fifth devoted to the development of the more meta- 
 physical aspects of the subject. The present work, 
 however, is only intended to serve the purpose of an 
 introductory sketch ; and the divisions which are here 
 adopted need not be of quite so elaborate a character. 
 As this book is intended primarily to be read by students 
 who have already pursued a course in Psychology, the 
 psychological aspects of the subject need not be very 
 fully developed. As regards the sociological aspects, 
 again, the whole science of sociology is in so unde- 
 veloped a condition that it would hardly be appropriate 
 in an elementary Text-book to make any confident 
 assertions about it. In a larger work various points 
 might fittingly be discussed which in such a book as 
 this are best omitted. Accordingly, all that is to be 
 said about these two departments of ethical study is 
 here compressed under the general heading of " Pro- 
 legomena, chiefly Psychological. " The various theories 
 pf morals must be dealt with somewhat more fully ;
 
 6.] THE DIVISIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 41 
 
 but here also we must content ourselves with the broad 
 distinctions, and leave the more minute historical details 
 for future study. In dealing with the concrete moral 
 life, we cannot attempt to do much more than indicate 
 the main points which it would be important to con- 
 sider in a more complete treatise. Finally, the meta- 
 physical implications of ethical theory can only be 
 referred to in a concluding chapter.
 
 I.] DESIRE AND WILL. 43 
 
 BOOK I. 
 
 PROLEGOMENA, CHIEFLY PSYCHOLOGICAL, 
 CHAPTER L 
 
 DESIRE AND WILL. 
 
 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARK. The questions that con- 
 cern us in this chapter are essentially psychological ; 
 and most of the points on which we have to touch 
 will be found treated, with more or less fulness, in any 
 psychological handbook. But it seems necessary here 
 to bring out their ethical significance. What chiefly 
 concerns us is the nature of those activities which are 
 described by the terms Will, and Conduct, and the 
 relation of these to that general condition of conscious 
 life which is described as Character. But in order to 
 understand these it is necessary also to say something 
 about the relationship between Desire and Will ; and it 
 is to that point that the present chapter is to be de- 
 voted. 
 
 2. GENERAL NATURE OF DESIRE. Before we consider 
 the way in which our desires are related to the will, it 
 is necessary to determine precisely what we are to 
 understand by the term desire. We must not, for in- 
 stance, confound human desires with the mere appetites 
 of an animal ; and there are also several other minor
 
 44 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. i. 
 
 distinctions which it is necessary to keep in view. 
 We may say, generally, that nothing is an object of 
 desire for a man unless it is consciously regarded as a 
 good : but this remark is perhaps not very enlighten- 
 ing ; for it would be difficult to define a good otherwise 
 than as an object that is consciously desired. 1 The 
 point is, however, that in all real desire there is some 
 object that is consciously taken as an end. Such an 
 object consciously taken as an end in desire is what 
 we call a good. By defining in this way, we seem to 
 be able to avoid going round in a circle. In order to 
 understand this point, however, it is necessary to go 
 more into the details of the distinction between desire 
 and other modes of activity. We may conveniently 
 begin with those forms of activity that are lowest in 
 the scale of life, and pass upwards from these to the 
 highest forms of human desire and will. 
 
 3. WANT AND APPETITE. We may begin by distin- 
 guishing the appetite of an animal from the mere pres- 
 ence of an animal want. An animal want is in itself 
 of the same nature as a vegetable want. It is a blind 
 tendency towards particular endSj which are involved 
 in the development of the life of the animal, just as 
 they might be also in the life of a plant. We may say, 
 if we like, that nature wills a the realization of these 
 ends; but they are not consciously willed by the 
 animal or plant itself. In the case of an appetite, on 
 the other hand, there is not merely a blind tendency 
 towards a particular end ; but this tendency is to a 
 
 1 C/. Aristotle's Ethics, I. i. I. : " The good is that at which all things 
 aim." 
 
 3 This conception is due to Aristotle. It is of course partly meta- 
 phorical, but suggests a Ideological view of the world.
 
 3-] DESIRE AND WILL. 45 
 
 certain extent present to consciousness. This con- 
 sciousness may appear partly in the form of a definite 
 presentation of the kind of object that will satisfy 
 a given want. The hungry lion may be more or 
 less clearly aware of the nature of the object that it 
 seeks. The plant, on the other hand, when it turns to 
 the sunlight, may be said to have a want ; but it can- 
 not be supposed to have any consciousness of the 
 nature of the object that will satisfy it. Even in the 
 case of an animal appetite, however, the conscious- 
 ness of the object is probably in most instances some- 
 what dim and vague. x The most prominent element in 
 the consciousness is rather the feeling of pleasure or 
 pain than any definite^ presentation of an object. An 
 unsatisfied appetite is in itself 2 painful ; whereas the 
 satisfaction of any appetite brings with it the feeling 
 of pleasure. These feelings form so characteristic and 
 prominent an element in animal appetites that satis- 
 factions of appetite are frequently referred to simply 
 as pleasures, while unsatisfied appetites are called 
 pains. A pleasure-seeker is generally understood to 
 be one who seeks the satisfaction of his animal ap- 
 petites, or of human impulses which are akin to these 
 appetites. A certain confusion is thus apt to arise 
 
 1 Some psychologists (of whom I gather that Mr. Stout is one) 
 would deny that this element is present at all. 
 
 3 It is necessary to say "in itself"; because the total effect of a 
 consciousness of unsatisfied want is sometimes rather pleasurable 
 than painful. Thus, moderate hunger in man, and perhaps even in 
 animals, seems often to be rather agreeable than otherwise. The 
 reason is probably in part that the feeling of hunger adds a pleasant 
 stimulus to the vital energies generally, and in part that the antici- 
 pation of satisfaction is easily called up by the consciousness of 
 want. See Note I. at the end of chap. ii.
 
 46 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. r. 
 
 between the satisfaction of an appetite and the agree- 
 able feeling which accompanies it ; since both are 
 called pleasure. But with this confusion we need not 
 at present trouble ourselves. 1 It is enough now to 
 observe that pleasure and pain are the most prominent 
 and characteristic features of animal appetite.* 
 
 4. APPETITE AND DESIRE. In the case of what is 
 strictly called desire, there is not merely the conscious- 
 ness of an object, with an accompanying feeling of 
 pleasure and pain, but also a recognition of the object 
 as a good, or as an element in a more or less clearly 
 defined end. 3 The hunger of an animal is different 
 from the mere want of nutriment in a plant ; but de- 
 sire for food in a man is scarcely less different from 
 mere hunger. A man may be hungry and yet not de- 
 sire food. In the desire of food there is involved, in 
 addition to the hunger, the representation of the food 
 as an end which it is worth while to secure. We may 
 express this by saying that desire implies a definite 
 point of view, whereas there is no such implication in 
 a mere appetite. Hunger is to all intents the same 
 phenomenon in the brute and in the sage ; but the de- 
 sires of the sage and the hero are very different from 
 those of the savage, the miser, or the epicure. The 
 desires of different men are determined by the total 
 nature of the point of view which the men occupy. 
 What they desire depends on what they like ; and what 
 
 1 See below, chap, il, 7 and 8. 
 
 * Appetite is, in the Aristotelian psychology, known as *i*Mf*. 
 Desire is pf n. But Aristotle uses optf n in a wide sense, so as to in- 
 clude c'viffvpt'o. De Anima, II., iii. z 
 
 For a full discussion of this point, see Green's Prolegomena to 
 Ethics, Book II., chap, il Cf. also Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, pjx 
 51-4 and Dewey's Psychology, p. 360 sqq.
 
 5-] DESIRE AND WILL. 47 
 
 they like, as Mt. Ruskin is so fond of insisting, is an 
 exact expression of what they are. Thus, while ordi- 
 nary hunger or thirst tells us nothing about the char- 
 acter of him who feels it, the hunger and thirst after 
 righteousness, or after power, or after fame, is a reve- 
 lation of a whole point of view. ' The desires of a per- 
 son, therefore, are not an isolated phenomenon, but 
 form an element in the totality, or, as we may say, the 
 universe of his character ; 2 and it is from this point of 
 view that we must regard them, if we are to understand 
 their full significance. 
 
 5. UNIVERSE OF DESIRE. What is meant by saying 
 that the desires of a human being form part of a " uni- 
 verse " may be made somewhat clearer by reference to 
 a similar conception in the science of Logic. It has 
 become a familiar thing in Logic to speak of a " uni- 
 verse of discourse, " 3 as signifying the sphere of refer- 
 ence within which a particular statement is made. 
 Thus a statement about " the gods " may be true with 
 reference to the world as depicted in the Homeric 
 poems, or to the world of Greek mythology generally, 
 but may be false or meaningless if understood with 
 reference to the world of ordinary fact. So too we 
 may make statements about griffins and unicorns in 
 the universe of heraldry, about fairies in the universe of 
 romance, about Hamlet or King Lear in the universe 
 of Shakespeare's plays, about Heaven and Hell and Pur- 
 gatory in the universe of Dante's Divine Comedy ; and 
 our statements may be true within these several uni 
 
 1 Cf. Muirhead's Elcmets of Ethics, p. 52. 
 * Cf. Dewey's Psychology, pp. 363-4. 
 
 ' See Keynes's Formal Logic, pp. 137-8, Venn's Empirical Logic, <p 
 \Velton*s Manual of Logic, vol i., j>p. 59-60,
 
 48 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. I. 
 
 verses, though they would become false if taken out of 
 the particular universe to which they belong. Now 
 there is something quite analogous in the case of our 
 desires. Each desire also belongs to a particular uni- 
 verse, and loses its meaning if we pass out of that 
 universe into another. This universe to which a desire 
 belongs is the universe that is constituted by the totality 
 of what we call a man's character, as that character 
 presents itself at the time at which the desire is felt. 
 It is, in short, the universe of the man's ethical point of 
 view at the moment in question. That there are great 
 differences between such universes, is evident from the 
 judgments that we habitually pass on the representa- 
 tions of human conduct in poems and novels and 
 dramas. We are often aware that a desire which is 
 attributed to a fictitious personage is not such a desire 
 as a man of his general character and situation would 
 feel, or at least not such as he would feel in such a 
 degree as is attributed to him. It is not such a desire, 
 in fact, as belongs to his particular universe. And the 
 particular universe which we thus estimate, and which 
 varies so widely with the characters of different indi- 
 viduals, is not even one that remains constant for the 
 same person. We must all be aware of the different 
 desires that dominate our minds in different moods, in 
 different conditions, in different states of health. These 
 differences constitute what we may call a difference of 
 universe ; and to each such universe a different set of 
 desires, or at least a different arrangement of desires, 
 belongs. This universe may even after suddenly in 
 the same individual, through some sudden transforma- 
 tion of conditions. It is such a change that is illus- 
 trated in the old fable of the cat which was transformed
 
 5-] DESIRE AND WILL. 4$ 
 
 into a princess, but returned again to its proper shape 
 on the sudden appearance of a mouse. Tke sudden 
 change of condition caused her to drop at once from 
 the universe of princess to the universe of cat. Of such 
 transformations life is rich in instances. There is a 
 German proverb that what one wishes in youth one 
 has to satiety in age ; but even from year to year and 
 from day to day sometimes even from hour to hour 
 we may find ourselves passing from one universe into 
 another, where what we formerly desired becomes 
 uninteresting, perhaps even disgusting. Any sudden 
 change the news of the death of a friend, the recollec- 
 tion of a promise, the suggestion of a moral principle, 
 and the like may carry us instantaneously from one 
 world into another. This is illustrated in Shakespeare's 
 play of Love's Labour Lost, where the announcement 
 of the death of the King of France brings suddenly to 
 a close the wit and levity of the preceding scenes, and 
 introduces an entirely different tone. Such a change 
 may fairly be referred to as a passage from one Uni- 
 verse to another. Or again, such a change may be 
 illustrated by the common transformation from a man's 
 Sunday view of life to that which he takes during the 
 rest of the week. Even a change of clothes suffices 
 with some men to produce a change of universe ; for 
 it is not always entirely true that "the cowl does not 
 make the monk. " * 
 
 6. CONFLICT OF DESIRES. In the preceding section 
 we have assumed, for the sake of simplicity, that at 
 
 1 On the nature of psychological universes the psychology of 
 Herbart is particularly instructive. Reference may be made to Mr. 
 Stout's Articles in Mind and to the same writer's Analytic Psychology 
 (especially chaps. VIIL, IX, and X.) 
 
 Eth.
 
 50 ETHICS. [BK. i. t CH. L 
 
 any given moment an individual occupies a definite 
 point of view, or is, so to speak, an inhabitant of a 
 single universe. In reality, however, the content of 
 an individual's consciousness is not so simple. There 
 are nearly always several points of view present to a 
 given individual at a given moment ; or, at any rate, 
 several points of view alternate with one another so 
 rapidly, that they may practically be regarded as pre- 
 sent together. A statesman, for instance, may be in- 
 fluenced in his conduct by motives derived from many 
 different universes. He may occupy the universe 
 which is constituted by the consideration of the good 
 of his country ; and from this point of view he may 
 strongly desire to see certain measures carried out. 
 But at the same time he may be not uninfluenced by 
 considerations drawn from very different universes. 
 He may occupy also a universe constituted by his own 
 personal ambition, by the welfare of his family, by the 
 wishes of his constituency, by a view of duty to the 
 world (as distinguished from his own country), per- 
 haps also by religious considerations. He may occupy 
 alternately, and almost simultaneously, all these dif- 
 ferent points of view ; and very various desires may 
 arise in his mind in consequence. It is probable that 
 some of these desires will conflict with others. From 
 one point of view he may desire peace, from another 
 war : from one point of view he may set his heart on 
 liberty, from another on order. It then comes to be a 
 question which of these ends the man will finally 
 choose. Now it is often said that in such cases a man 
 will naturally, or even necessarily, be influenced by 
 the strongest desire or motive. But it must be observed 
 that this mode of statement is misleading. It implie*
 
 6.] DESIRE AND WILL. $1 
 
 that a desire is an isolated thing ; whereas in reality it 
 forms part of a universe or system. Consequently, the 
 real strength of a desire does not depend on its own 
 individual liveliness or force, but rather on the force 
 of the universe or system to which it belongs. Thus a 
 man might be strongly desirous of war from a feeling 
 of hatred towards a foreign power. But if the man 
 were of such a character that the sense of duty was 
 more dominant in him than the feeling of personal 
 hatred, he might decide for peace, though the desire 
 for peace in itself did not strongly influence him. The 
 latter desire would conquer, not because it was in 
 itself the stronger, but because it formed a part of a 
 stronger universe or system. x Of course a strong de- 
 sire gives strength to the universe to which it belongs ; 
 but the final triumph of a desire depends not on its own 
 individual dominance, but on the dominance of its 
 universe. How in particular individuals one universe 
 comes to be dominant rather than another, is a ques- 
 tion rather for Psychology than for Ethics. In so far as 
 it concerns Ethics, it will be touched upon in some future 
 sections of this book.* In the meantime, what it is 
 important to note is merely that a desire is not an 
 isolated phenomenon but a part of a system ; and that 
 conlequently a conflict of desires is in reality a conflict 
 between two or more universes of desire. 3 
 
 * Cf. Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, Book II., chap. L, 105, p. 108. 
 
 * See, for instance, Book III., chap. vL 
 
 * Cf. Dewey's Psychology, pp. 364-5 : " It is important to notice 
 that it is a strife or conflict which goes on in the man himself ; it is a 
 conflict of himself with himself [i. e., in our language, a conflict of him 
 elf as one universe with himself as another universe] ; it is not a con- 
 flict of himself with something external to him, nor of one impulse 
 with another impulse, he meanwhile remaining a passive spectator
 
 $2 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. L 
 
 7. DESIRE AND WISH. The terms "desire" and 
 " wish " are frequently used as synonymous ; but there 
 is a slight difference in the usage of the terms, and it 
 seems desirable to employ them in Ethics in distinct 
 senses. We may say briefly that a wish is an effective 
 desire. The meaning of this will be more apparent 
 when it is considered in relation to what has just been 
 said with regard to universes of desire and the conflict 
 between them. It has been stated that any given 
 desire belongs to a system or universe, and that various 
 such systems may exist simultaneously and come into 
 conflict with one another. When such conflicts occur, 
 certain desires predominate over others ; some are sub- 
 ordinated or sink into abeyance. Now it may be con- 
 venient to limit the term " wish" to those desires that 
 predominate or continue to be effective. A hungry 
 man may be said to have a desire for food ; but this 
 desire may be dominant only within the universe of 
 animal inclination. The desire may be kept in abey- 
 ance by a sense of religious obligation, by devotion 
 to work, or by some overmastering passion. In such 
 cases we may say that the man no longer vrishes for 
 food, though a desire for food continues to exist in his 
 consciousness as an element in a subordinate universe 
 held, as it were, in leash. A desire, then, \fhich 
 
 awaiting the conclusion of the struggle. What gives the conflict of 
 desires its whole meaning is that it represents the man at strife with 
 himself. He is the opposing contestants as well as the battle-field" 
 This last expression was no doubt suggested to Prof. Dewey by a very 
 striking passage in Hegel's Philosophy of Religion (I. 64), in which ha 
 says : " I am not one of the combatants, but rather both of the com. 
 batants and also the combat itself * ; cr, as Principal Caird renders it 
 (Philosophy of Religion, chap, ijc, p. 262) : " I am at once the combat 
 ati and *h** conflict and *he held that is torn with the ttrif **
 
 8.] DESIRE AND WILL. 53 
 
 has become ineffective, is not to be described as a 
 wish. ' 
 
 8. WISH AND WILL. If it is important to distin- 
 guish an effective wish from a mere latent desire, it is 
 still more important to distinguish a wish from a defi- 
 nite act of will. It might seem at first that if a wish is 
 a dominant desire it must always issue in, will. But 
 this is not the case. The reason is that a wish is often 
 of an abstract character, directed towards some single 
 element in a concrete event, without reference to the 
 accompanying circumstances. In order, on the other 
 hand, that an event may be willed, it has to be accepted 
 in its concrete totality. When Lady Anne, in Shake- 
 speare's King Richard III., says to the Duke of Glou- 
 cester, 
 
 * Though I wish thy death, 
 I will not be the executioner," * 
 
 the contrast between wish and will is well brought out. 
 The wish for the death is a mere abstract wish, since 
 it does not include the means by which the death might 
 be brought about. 2 On the other hand, when a total 
 concrete effect is willed, it may include many elements 
 
 1 1 use the term wish, it will be observed, in a sense almost cor- 
 responding to the Aristotelian ^OU'A^I? (as distinguished from p< i?). 
 See, for instance, De Anima, III., ix. 3, III., x. 3, && E. Wallace 
 translates 0ovAT)<n " settled wish." It should be observed, however, 
 that " wish " is not always understood in this way by Psychologists. 
 Often no distinction is drawn between Desire and Wish ; and when 
 a distinction is drawn, it is frequently drawn in a different way (some- 
 times almost in the opposite way) 
 
 'Often, of course, the means are entirely beyond our power. 
 Thus, we may wish for a change of weather, or to live some part of 
 our past lives over again. Here the wish cannot pass into will, 
 because, as soon as we think of the means, we see that they are out 
 of reach.
 
 54 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. i. 
 
 that are not in themselves wished, and even elements 
 to which the agent's wishes are strenuously opposed. 
 This also may be illustrated from Shakespeare. When 
 the apothecary, in Romeo and Juliet, says to Romeo, 
 on agreeing to sell him the poison, 
 
 " My poverty, but not my will, consents," 1 
 
 what he means is evidently that hiszwsA does not con- 
 sent. He does will the sale of the poison he accepts 
 that concrete act but he wishes it were not necessary 
 for him to do so. The dominant single desire, we may 
 say, is opposed to the s^le of the poison (/'. e. if we as- 
 sume that the apothecary was honest in his declara- 
 tion) ; but the dominant universe of desire is that which 
 is constituted by his poverty, and by this he is led to 
 will the sale. Briefly, then, we may say that a wish 
 is a dominant single desire ; whereas the will depends 
 on the dominance of a universe of desire.* 
 
 9. WILL AND ACT. Another important distinction is 
 that between the mere Will (*'. e. the mere intention, 
 purpose, or resolution) and the carrying of it into act. 
 A resolution has always reference to something that is 
 more or less future. Sometimes it refers to the im- 
 mediate future, and is carried into effect at once. At 
 other times it refers to the remote future, and remains 
 in abeyance till the proper time arrives. In the latter 
 case the purpose may never be carried into effect at all. 
 An intention or resolution is always something more 
 than a mere wish : it is the definite acceptance of a 
 
 * This passage is discussed in Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, 143, 
 p. 148. "The will," Green says, "is only the strong competing wish 
 which does not suffice to determine action." 
 
 * This use of the term will seems to correspond pretty closely to 
 the Aristotelian irpo<u>ri.
 
 9-] DESIRE AND WILL. 55 
 
 concrete event as an object to be aimed at. But if this 
 event is remote, the purpose may lie within one uni- 
 verse and the carrying of it out within another. When 
 the time for action comes, the conditions may have 
 changed. At the lowest there will be this change, that 
 what was formerly presented merely in anticipative 
 imagination is now presented as an actual fact To 
 resolve to make a confession, for instance, is one 
 thing : actually to make it, in the presence of those to 
 whom it has to be made, is often a very different thing. 
 In the former case the accompanying circumstances 
 are only presented in an imaginative and partly sym- 
 bolic way : in the latter case they are actually present 
 to sense. Now, the actual facts may not correspond 
 to the anticipation. Those to whom the confession 
 was to be made, for instance, may be found to be in a 
 different mood from what was expected. And even if 
 the anticipation proves substantially correct, still, in 
 the actual presentation we may be impressed by ac- 
 cessory circumstances of which we had not taken any 
 particular account. The man who resolves to get up 
 at an early hour may not have thought particularly 
 about the coldness of the morning air, or about the 
 pleasantness of lying in bed ; whereas, when the time 
 comes, these may be among the most impressive 
 circumstances. Or, again, when Lady Macbeth in- 
 tended to murder Duncan, it did not occur to her that 
 he might resemble her father. So, too, when Hamlet 
 resolved to carry out the behests of the Ghost, he did 
 not think of all the doubts that might suggest them- 
 selves to his mind after the Ghost had vanished. Thus 
 "enterprises of great pith and moment," as well as 
 more insignificant designs, may be frustrated by a
 
 $6 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. L 
 
 change of universe; and the "best intentions," or the 
 worst, may lead to nothing. 1 This is especially true 
 when the purpose is one that carries great conse- 
 quences in its train, involving perhaps a complete 
 change of the world within which we have been living. 
 In such a case the changed world cannot be with any 
 completeness imagined, and some very small circum- 
 stance may easily give a completely new turn to our 
 thoughts. The "insurrection " * by which the universe 
 within which we are living is to be overthrown cannot 
 be at once carried out, and we cannot with any 
 thoroughness think ourselves into the new conditions 
 that are to arise. Thus a mere resolution is still far 
 from being an act.* What is commonly called "force 
 of will " means the power of carrying resolutions into 
 act. This power depends largely on the habit of fixing 
 our attention upon the salient features of an object that 
 is aimed at, and not allowing ourselves to be distracted 
 by subordinate conditions. Hence, narrow-minded or 
 hard-hearted men have often more "force of will," in 
 this sense, than those who take wider views. But a 
 wide-minded man may also acquire " force of M'ill " by 
 taking a clear and decided view of the circumstances 
 
 Cf. below, Book III., chap. vL, 3. 
 
 Cf. Shakespeare's Julius Ccesar, Act II., scene L, 1L 63 sqq. 
 
 " Between the acting of a dreadful thing 
 And the first motion, all the interim is 
 Like a phantasma, or a hideous dream : 
 The Genius and the mortal instruments 
 Are then in council ; and the State of man, 
 Like to a little kingdom, suffers then 
 The nature of an insurrection." 
 
 For an admirable summary of the elements involved in an act of 
 rill, sec M airhead's Elements of Ethics, pp. 4&-5Q.
 
 II.] DESIRE AND WILL. 57 
 
 that are important, and thus eliminating insignificant 
 details. 
 
 10. THE MEANING OF PURPOSE. When Will is regarded 
 in relation to the end at which it aims, it is called Pur- 
 pose. This term, however, is sometimes used also to 
 describe the end itself, rather than the fact of aiming at 
 an end. Purpose should be carefully distinguished from 
 those tendencies to action which accompany appetite, 
 desire, and wish. Action based on appetite is generally 
 described as impulsive ; but this term is sometimes used 
 also with reference to actions that issue from desire. 
 We may use the terms Blind Impulse and Conscious 
 Impulse to mark the distinction. The tendency of a 
 wish, again, to issue in action is most properly de- 
 scribed by the term Inclination. When we are inclined 
 to do anything, we are not merely conscious of an 
 impulse to do it, but we to a certain extent approve the 
 impulse ; though it maybe that, on reflection, we may 
 resolve not to follow it. A Purpose or Resolution is 
 thus distinguished from an Impulse (whether Blind or 
 Conscious) and from an Inclination. 
 
 11. WILL AND CHARACTER. "A character," said 
 Novalis, " is a completely fashioned will." Character 
 may be said, in the language we have just been using, 
 to consist in the continuous dominance of a definite 
 universe. A man of good character is one in whom 
 the universe of duty habitually predominates. A miser 
 is one in whom the dominant universe is that which is 
 constituted by the love of money. A fanatic is one in 
 whom some particular universe is so entirely dominant 
 as to shut out entirely other important points of view. 
 And in like manner all other kinds of character may bo 
 described by reference to the nature of the universe that
 
 58 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. i. 
 
 is dominant in them. When Pope said that "Most 
 women have no characters at all," he meant that the 
 universes of desire in which they live are so continually 
 varying that no one of them can be said to be habit- 
 ually dominant. And certainly it is the case that 
 most men, as well as most women, cannot be ac- 
 counted for by so simple an explanation as the exclu- 
 sive dominance of such ' ' ruling passions " as Pope dealt 
 with. In the case of most actual human beings what 
 we have is not so much any one universe that decidedly 
 predominates as a number of universes that stand to 
 one another in certain definite relations. The different 
 relations in which they stand to one another constitute 
 the differences of character. How it comes that now 
 one, and now another, predominates, is, as we have 
 already remarked, a question rather for Psychology 
 than for Ethics. The habitual modes of action that 
 accompany a formed character are described by the 
 term Conduct. The meaning of this we shall have to 
 discuss almost immediately. * 
 
 1 Mr. Stout's article on ' ' Voluntary Action " {Mind t New Series, 
 Vol. V., no. 19) will be found in the highest degree instructive on 
 several of the points referred to in this chapter, as well as on some 
 of those that are dealt with in the following chapters. See also the 
 closing chapter of his Manual of Psychology .
 
 I.] MOTIVE AND INTENTION. 59 
 
 CHAPTER IL 
 
 MOTIVE AND INTENTION. 
 
 1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. So far we have been 
 considering the general nature of the relationship 
 between Desire and Will. It is now necessary that we 
 should direct our attention to the nature of the end 
 involved in Volition ; and, in particular, that we 
 should consider the important distinction between an 
 Intention and a Motive. This is a point on which a 
 good deal of discussion has turned ; and, owing to 
 the great difficulties that are involved in it, it is a 
 point that requires very careful study. First, then, we 
 must try to understand exactly what Intention and 
 Motive mean. 
 
 2. THE MEANING OF INTENTION. The term Inten- 
 tion corresponds pretty closely to the term Purpose. 
 Indeed, they are sometimes used as synonymous. 
 But Purpose seems to refer rather to the mental 
 activity, and Intention to the end towards which the 
 mental activity is directed. Intention, understood in 
 this sense, means anything which we purpose to 
 bring about. Now what we thus purpose is often 
 a very complicated result. We may aim at some 
 external end, i. e. at the accomplishment of some 
 change in the physical world e. g. the building of a 
 house ; or in the social system within which we live
 
 60 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. n. 
 
 e. g". the overthrow of a government ; or, again, we 
 may aim at the bringing about of some state of our 
 own minds, or at the realization of some principle. 
 Some distinctions between different kinds of Intention 
 may help to make this clear. 
 
 In the first place, we may distinguish between the 
 immediate and the remote intentions of an act Thus, 
 two men may both have the immediate intention of 
 saving a third from drowning ; but the one may wish 
 to save him from drowning simply in order that his 
 life may be preserved, whereas the other may wish 
 to save him from drowning in order that he may be 
 reserved for hanging. ' In this case, while the imme- 
 diate intentions are the same, the remote intentions 
 are very different. The remote intention of an act is 
 sometimes called the motive ; but this use of the term 
 seems to be incorrect. 
 
 In the second place, we may distinguish between 
 the outer and the inner intention of an act. This may 
 be illustrated by the familiar story of Abraham 
 Lincoln and the pig that he helped out of a ditch. On 
 being praised for this action, Lincoln is said to have 
 replied that he did it, not for the sake of the pig, but 
 rather on his own account, in order to rid his mind 
 of the uncomfortable thought of the animal's distress. 
 Here the outer intention was to rescue the animal, 
 while the inner intention was to remove an uncom- 
 fortable feeling from the mind. The inner intention, 
 in this instance, is evidently only a particular case of 
 the remote intention ; but it is not so in every in- 
 ttance. Thus if a man were to endeavour to produce 
 
 C/. Hill's Utilitarianism, chap, il p. 27, nofe
 
 2.] MOTIVE AND INTENTION. 6l 
 
 a certain feeling in his mind say, of penitence or 
 of faith with the view of securing the favour of 
 Heaven, the immediate intention would be an inner 
 one, while the remote intention would be outer. The 
 inner intention of an act, like the remote intention, is 
 sometimes apt to be confounded with the motive. 
 
 In the third place, we may distinguish between the 
 direct and the indirect intention of an act. If a Nihilist 
 seeks to blow up a train containing an Emperor and 
 others, 1 his direct intention may be simply the de- 
 struction of the Emperor, but indirectly also he in- 
 tends the destruction of the others who are in the 
 train, since he is aware that their destruction will be 
 necessarily included along with that of the Emperor. 
 
 In the fourth place, we may distinguish between 
 the conscious and the unconscious intention of an act. 
 To what extent any intention can be unconscious, is 
 a question for psychology. By an unconscious inten- 
 tion is here understood simply an intention which the 
 agent does not definitely avow to himself. A man's 
 conduct is often in reality profoundly influenced by 
 such intentions. Thus the intention which he avows 
 to himself may be that of promoting the well-being of 
 mankind, while in reality he may be much more 
 strongly influenced by that of advancing his own 
 reputation. 
 
 In the fifth place, we may distinguish between the 
 formal and the material intention of an act. The 
 material intention means the particular result as a 
 realized fact ; the formal intention means the principle 
 embodied in the fact. Two men may both aim at the 
 
 i Cf. Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics, Book III., chap. I, $ a (p. xa, 
 otea),
 
 62 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. n 
 
 overthrow of a particular governmeni Their material 
 intentions are in that case the same. But the one 
 may aim at its overthrow because he thinks it too 
 progressive, the other because he thinks it too con- 
 servative. The intentions of the two men are in this 
 case very different formally, though their actions 
 (which may consist simply in the giving of a vote) 
 may be materially the same. 
 
 These distinctions are given here, not as being an 
 exhaustive list, but simply with the view of bringing 
 out the complications that may be involved in a pur- 
 pose. It is important to bring them out, since, 
 otherwise, the relation between motive and intention 
 can hardly be explained. 
 
 Summing up, then, we may say, that an intention, 
 in the broadest sense of the term, means any aim that 
 is definitely adopted as an object of will ; and that 
 such intentions may be of various distinct kinds. 
 
 3. MEANING OF MOTIVE. The term " motive " is not 
 less ambiguous than "intention." The motive means, 
 of course, what moves us or causes us to act in a par- 
 ticular way. Now there is an ambiguity in the term 
 "cause." A cause may be either efficient or final. 
 The efficient cause of a man's movements, for instance, 
 is the action of certain nerves, muscles, &c. ; the final 
 cause is the desired end, the reaching of a destination 
 or the production of a result. There is a similar ambi- 
 guity in the use of the term "motive." 1 A motive 
 may be understood to mean either that which impels 
 or that which induces us to act In a particular way. 
 
 In the former sense, we say that we are moved by 
 
 C/. Muirhead'a Elements of Ethics, pp. 3&-6a
 
 3.] MOTIVE AND INTENTION. 63 
 
 feeling or emotion. Thus we say that a man's motive 
 was anger, or jealousy, or fear, or pity, or pleasure, or t 
 pain. Some writers ' have even maintained that pleasure 
 and pain are the only ultimate motives. This view we 
 shall shortly require to consider. In the meantime we 
 have simply to remark that it is no doubt true that men 
 are sometimes moved to action by feeling. In conduct 
 on which a moral judgment can be passed, however, 
 a man is never solely moved by feeling. If a man is 
 entirely " carried away " by feeling by anger or fear, 
 for instance he cannot properly be said to act at all, 
 any more than a stone acts when a man throws it at 
 an object We may judge the character of a man who 
 is carried away by feeling or passion : we may say 
 that he ought not to have allowed himself to be so 
 carried away ; but if he is entirely mastered by his 
 passion, we cannot pass a moral judgment on his act, 
 any more than on the act of a madman, or one who is 
 drunk. Moral activity or conduct is purposeful action ; 
 and action with a purpose is not simply moved by 
 feeling : it is moved rather by the thought of some end 
 to be attained. This leads us to the second, and more 
 correct, sense in which the term "motive" may be 
 
 used. 
 
 The distinction may be made clear by considering 
 the case of a man who is " moved by pity " to give 
 assistance to a fellow-creature in distress. The mere 
 feeling of pity is evidently not sufficient to move us to 
 action. It may serve as an element in the efficient 
 cause of action /'. e. the man who has a keen sense of 
 pity may be more readily impelled to action than the 
 one whose feeling is comparatively blunt But the 
 i E. g. Bentham.
 
 
 64 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. IL 
 
 feeling itself is not a sufficient inducement to action. 
 By itself, it moves at the utmost to tears as, for in 
 stance, in the theatre, when we witness imaginary dis- 
 tresses. When a man is moved to action, he must 
 have, besides the mere feeling, the conception of an 
 end to be attained. He perceives a fellow-creature, 
 for instance, in a wretched plight, and sees that, by a 
 certain effort, the man might be put in a more favour- 
 able position. The putting of the man in this more 
 favourable position presents itself to his mind as a 
 desirable end ; and the thought of this desirable end 
 induces him to act in a particular way. If he feels 
 pity, in addition, this may impel him the more readily 
 to such an action ; but the feeling of pity is not, by 
 itself, the inducement to the action, ;'. e. the motive 
 in the more correct sense. The motive, that which 
 induces us to act, is the thought of a desirable end. 1 
 4. RELATION BETWEEN MOTIVES AND INTENTIONS.- 
 
 1 So also when, in Goldsmith's ballad, 
 
 " The dog, to gain some private ends. 
 Went mad, and bit the man," 
 
 the motive was constituted by the gaining of some private ends, not 
 by the mere madness. Cf. Tucker's Light of Nature, chap. v. The 
 view of Motive given above seems to be essentially that of Aristotle, 
 when he says (DeAnima, III. x.4) i ? T& opexrov ("it is always 
 the desired object that moves to action " ). Some writers, however, 
 still object to this use of the term. See, for instance, the discussions 
 in the International Journal of Ethics, VoL IV., Nos. i and z Pro- 
 fessor Ritchie maintains there (p. 236) that " 'desire' is the genus of 
 which 'motive* is a species. The differentia of 'motive' is the 
 presence of a conception of an end." But surely this must be 
 erroneous. Surely all desire involves a conception of an end. It is 
 right to add that the term " motive " seems originally to have beeq 
 used for any efficient cause of movement It appears to be used iq 
 ttut way in Shakespeare's description of Cressida
 
 4-] MOTIVE AND INTENTION. 6$ 
 
 From what has now been said, it is evident that th 
 relation between motives and intentions is a very close 
 one. The motive of our act is that which induces us 
 to perform it. Now it is evident that this must be in- 
 cluded in the intention, in the broadest sense of that 
 term, but need not be, and generally will not be, iden- 
 tical with the whole of it. * What induces us to perform 
 an act is always something that we hope to achieve 
 by it ; a but there may be much that we expect to 
 achieve by it (and even that we consciously intend to 
 achieve by it) which would not serve as an inducement 
 to its performance, and which might even serve as an 
 inducement not to perform it. The motive of a reform- 
 er may be partly that of improving the state of man- 
 kind and partly that of acquiring fame for himself. 
 Both of these ends form part of his intention, in the 
 widest sense of the term. But he may also be well 
 aware that the result of his action will be, for a time, 
 " not to send peace on the earth, but a sword." He 
 may anticipate a certain amount of confusion and 
 misery as the immediate result of his action, and per- 
 haps also of persecution for himself. If he clearly 
 
 " Her wanton spirits look out 
 At every joint and motive of her body." 
 
 But here, as in so many other cases, the meaning of the word has 
 been gradually modified, partly to suit the conyeniences of ordinary 
 life, and partly to meet the requirements of science. 
 
 1 Cf. Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, p. 61. When Prof. Dewey 
 (Outlines of Ethics, p. 9) says that " the foreseen, the ideal conse- 
 quences are the end of the act, and as such form the motive," he 
 appears to identify the motive with the whole intention. This seems 
 to me to be erroneous, or at least to be an inconvenient use of the 
 term. For the meaning of " ideal " in this phrase of Prof. DeweyX 
 see above, Introduction, chap, ii., 5, note. 
 
 * Except of course when we are impelled by mere feeling or passio* 
 Eth.
 
 66 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. IL 
 
 foresees that these results will ensue on his action, it 
 can scarcely be said that he does not intend them. He 
 deliberately accepts them as being inevitably involved 
 in the good result which he hopes to achieve. Bwt 
 assuredly we may say that these evil consequences 
 form no part of his motive in endeavouring to achieve 
 the good result. Or, to take a still simpler case, when 
 Brutus helped to kill Caesar, in order to save his coun- 
 try, 1 he certainly intended to kill Caesar, but the killing 
 of Caesar was no part of his motive. 
 
 The motive of an act, then, is a part of the intention, 
 in the broadest sense of that term, but does not neces- 
 sarily include the whole of the intention. Adopting 
 the distinctions that have been drawn in section 2, we 
 may say that the motive generally includes the greater 
 part of the remote intention, but frequently does not 
 include much of the immediate intention ; that it 
 generally includes the direct intention, but not the 
 indirect ; that it nearly always includes the formal 
 intention, but often not much of the material intention ; 
 and that it may be either outer or inner, conscious or 
 unconscious. 
 
 5. Is THE MOTIVE ALWAYS PLEASURE ? We are now 
 in a position to deal with the question, to which 
 allusion has already been made, whether the motive 
 to action is always pleasure. This question must be 
 carefully distinguished, at the outset, from the question 
 whether pleasure is always involved in the presentation 
 of any motive. This distinction has been expressed 
 as that between taking pleasure in an idea and aiming 
 
 * Assuming the view taken by Plutarch and Shakespeare to b 
 Correct For a different view of Brutus, see Froude's Ccesar.
 
 6.] MOTIVE AND INTENTION. 67 
 
 at the idea of pleasure. It is probably true that every- 
 thing at which we aim is thought of as pleasant. We 
 take pleasure in the idea of accomplishing our end. 
 To say this is obviously a very different thing from 
 saying that the idea of pleasure is the end at which we 
 aim, or that pleasure is always that which serves as 
 the inducement to action. 1 The former view would 
 be generally accepted by all psychologists ; the latter 
 is the doctrine of those who are known as Psychological 
 Hedonists. This doctrine is expressed, for instance, in 
 the following passage from Bentham, 2 "Nature has 
 placed man under the empire of pleasure and of pain. 
 We owe to them all our ideas ; we refer to them all 
 our judgments, and all the. determinations of our life. 
 He who pretends to withdraw himself from this sub- 
 jection knows not what he says. His only object is 
 to seek pleasure and to shun pain, even at the very 
 instant that he rejects the greatest pleasures or em- 
 braces pains the most acute. These eternal and 
 irresistible sentiments ought to be the great study of 
 the moralist and the legislator. The principle of utility 
 subjects everything to these two motives." Here we 
 have a clear statement of the view that pleasure and 
 pain are the only possible motives to action, the only 
 ends at which we can aim. This is the view that we 
 have now to consider. 
 
 6. PSYCHOLOGICAL HEDONISM. Psychological He- 
 donism is the theory that the ultimate object of desire 
 is pleasure. The best known exponent of this doctrine 
 
 1 It is probably true, as Mr. Bradley has urged, that the idea of 
 pleasure is always pleasant (see Mind, New Series, VoL IV, no. 14). 
 But this does not affect the present point 
 
 Principles of Le&slation, chap. I.
 
 68 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. II. 
 
 is John Stuart Mill* In the fourth chapter of his book 
 on Utilitarianism he reasons in the following way. 
 " And now to decide whether this is really so ; whether 
 mankind do desire nothing for itself but that which is 
 a pleasure to them, or of which the absence is a pain ; 
 we have evidently arrived at a question of fact and 
 experience, dependent, like all similar questions, upon 
 evidence. It can only be determined by practised 
 self-consciousness and self-observation, assisted by 
 observation of others. I believe that these sources of 
 evidence, impartially consulted, will declare that desir- 
 ing a thing and finding it pleasant, aversion to it and 
 thinking of it as painful, are phenomena entirely insep- 
 arable, or rather two parts of the same phenomenon ; 
 in strictness of language, two different modes of naming 
 the same psychological fact : that to think of an object 
 as desirable (except for the sake of its consequences), 
 and to think of it as pleasant, are one and the same 
 thing ; and that to desire anything, except in propor- 
 tion as the idea of it is pleasant, is a physical and 
 metaphysical impossibility." This passage has been 
 well criticised by Dr. Sidgwick in his Methods of Ethics 
 (Book I., chap. iv.). He says "Mill explains that 
 ' desiring a thing and finding it pleasant, are, in strict-* 
 
 1 Nearly all Hedonists, however, especially egoistic Hedonists, 
 have with more or less clearness adopted this position. For a general 
 historical exposition of the Hedonistic point of view, the student may 
 be referred to Lecky's History of European Morals, chap. L, and 
 Watson's Hedonistic Theories, from Aristippus to Spencer. The chief 
 living exponent of psychological Hedonism is Professor Bain. See 
 his Menial and Moral Science, Book IV., chap, iv., and The Emotions 
 and the Will, "The Will," chap. viii. Dr. Bain, however, admits that 
 it is possible, " for moments," to aim at other things than pleasure, 
 On the general meaning of Hedonism and its chief varieties, see 
 below, Book II., chap, iv, 1-4.
 
 $ 7-] MOTIVE AND INTENTION. 69 
 
 ness of language, two modes of naming the same 
 psychological fact.' If this be the case, it is hard to 
 see how the proposition we are discussing requires to 
 be determined by 'practised self-consciousness and 
 self-observation ; ' as the denial of it would involve a 
 contradiction in terms. The truth is that there is an 
 ambiguity in the word Pleasure, which has always 
 tended seriously to confuse the discussion of this ques- 
 tion. When we speak of a man doing something at 
 his own 'pleasure,' or as he 'pleases,' we usually sig- 
 nify the mere fact of choice or preference ; the mere 
 determination of the will in a certain direction. Now, 
 if by ' pleasant ' we mean that which influences 
 choice, exercises a certain attractive force on the will, 
 it is an assertion incontrovertible because tautological, 
 to say that we desire what is pleasant or even that 
 we desire a thing in proportion as it appears pleasant" 
 This would mean simply that we desire it in proportion 
 as we desire it; because "appears pleasant " means 
 simply "is desired by us." But, as Dr. Sidgwick goes 
 on to say, if we understand "pleasure" in a more exact 
 sense, it is not obvious that what we desire is always 
 pleasure. If we take pleasure to mean the agree- 
 able feeling which attends the satisfaction of our wants, 
 it is not by any means evident that this is always what 
 we desire. On the contrary, it seems evident rather 
 that this is not always what we desire. 
 
 7. THE OBJECT OF DESIRE, (i) The Paradox of He- 
 donism. In the part of the Methods of Ethics to which 
 reference has just been made, Dr. Sidgwick goes on to 
 argue that in fact what we desire is very frequently 
 some objective end, and not the accompanying plea- 
 sure. He points out that even when we do ..esire
 
 TO ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. IL 
 
 pleasure, the best way to get it is often to forget it. 
 If we think about the pleasure itself, we are almost 
 sure to miss it ; whereas if we direct our desires 
 towards objective ends, the pleasure comes of itself. 
 This is not true of all pleasures. It is true chiefly of 
 the "pleasures of pursuit." 1 "Take, for example," 
 says Dr. Sidgwick, "the case of any game which in- 
 volves as most games do a contest for victory. No 
 ordinary player before entering on such a contest, has 
 any desire for victory in it : indeed he often finds it 
 difficult to imagine himself deriving gratification from 
 such victory, before he has actually engaged in the 
 competition. What he deliberately, before the game 
 begins, desires, is not victory, but the pleasant excite- 
 ment of the struggle for it ; only for the full develop- 
 ment of this pleasure a transient desire to win the game 
 is generally indispensable. This desire, which does 
 not exist at first, is stimulated to considerable intensity 
 by the competition itself." "A certain degree of dis- 
 interestedness seems to be necessary in order to obtain 
 full enjoyment. A man who maintains throughout an 
 epicurean mood, fixing his aim on his own pleasure, 
 does not catch the full spirit of the chase ; his eagerness 
 never gets just the sharpness of edge which imparts to 
 the pleasure its highest zest. Here comes into view 
 what we may call the fundamental paradox of Hedon- 
 ism, that the impulse towards pleasure, if too pre- 
 dominant, defeats its own aim. This effect is not 
 visible, or at any rate is scarcely visible, in the case of 
 passive sensual pleasures. But of our active enjoy- 
 ments generally .... it may certainly be said that 
 
 1 See the Note at the end of this chapter.
 
 8.] MOTIVE AND INTENTION. Jl 
 
 we cannot attain them, at least in their highest degree, 
 so long as we concentrate our aim on them." 
 "Similarly, the pleasures of thought and study can 
 only be enjoyed in the highest degree by those who 
 have an ardour of curiosity which carries the mind 
 temporarily away from self and its sensations. In all 
 kinds of Art, again, the exercise of the creative faculty 
 is attended by intense and exquisite pleasures ; but in 
 order to get them, one must forget them." This 
 "paradox of Hedonism," that in order to get pleasure 
 it is necessary to seek something else, was to some 
 extent recognized even by Mill ; but he does not seem 
 to have perceived that it is inconsistent with the view 
 that desire is always directed towards pleasure. 
 Desire can evidently be, at least temporarily, directed 
 not towards pleasure, but towards certain objective 
 ends. 
 
 8. THE OBJECT OF DESIRE. (2) Wants prior to Sat- 
 isfactions. We must next notice another point, which 
 was brought out chiefly by Butler ' and Hutcheson, 
 though some subsequent writers have ignored it viz. 
 that many kinds of pleasure would not exist at all, if 
 they were not preceded by certain desires for objects. 
 Take, for instance, the pleasures of the benevolent af- 
 fections. No one could possibly feel these pleasures 
 unless he were first benevolent i. e. had a desire for 
 the welfare of others. In such a case, therefore, the 
 very existence of the pleasure depends on the fact that 
 desire is first directed towards something other than 
 pleasure. It might even be argued that this is the case 
 
 1 See Sidgwick's History of Ethics, p. 192 ; and cf. Green's edition 
 of Hume, voL ii., Introd, p. 26, Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, i6x, 
 p. 167, Caird's Critical Philosophy of Kant, vol. ii., p. 230, note.
 
 7 ETHICS. [BK. j. f CH. 11, 
 
 with all pleasures. Pleasure ensues upon the satisfac- 
 tion of certain wants, and the wants must be prior to 
 the satisfactions. We have a "disinterested" desire 
 for food, before we can have a desire for the pleasure 
 that accompanies the taking of food. From this con- 
 sideration also it appears that there are some desires 
 which are not desires for pleasure. 
 
 9. THE OBJECT OF DESIRE. (3) Pleasures and Plea- 
 sure. At the same time it must be allowed that there 
 is a certain plausibility in Mill's statements, and we 
 must endeavour to account for this plausibility. It 
 seems to arise from an ambiguity 1 in the word "plea- 
 sure." Pleasure is sometimes understood to mean 
 agreeable feeling, or the feeling of satisfaction, and 
 sometimes it is understood to mean an object that gives 
 satisfaction. The hearing of music is sometimes said 
 to be a pleasure : but of course the hearing of music is 
 not a feeling of satisfaction ; it is an object that gives 
 satisfaction. Generally it may be observed that when 
 we speak of " pleasures " in the plural, or rather in 
 the concrete, we mean objects that give satisfaction ; 
 whereas when we speak of " pleasure " in the abstract 
 we more often mean the feeling of satisfaction which 
 such objects bring with them.* But this is not always 
 the case. 
 
 Perhaps this distinction is more obvious in the case 
 of pain than in the case of pleasure. Pain is generally 
 understood as the negative of pleasure, **. e. as meaning 
 disagreeable feeling, or feeling of dissatisfaction. But 
 
 1 A second ambiguity. Another ambiguity, pointed out by Dr. 
 Sidgwick, has been already referred to above. 
 
 * C/. Dr. Ward's article on "Psychology" in the Encyclopaedia 
 Britannica. p. 71.
 
 9-] MOTIVE AND INTENTION. 73 
 
 when we speak of "pains" we usually mean objects 
 that produce a disagreeable feeling; and indeed we 
 usually mean objects of a definite kind viz. organic 
 sensations. The pain of toothache, for instance, is not 
 merely a feeling of disagreeabltmess or dissatisfaction, 
 but a definite sensation. That sensation is an object, 
 and it is an object which brings with it a feeling of 
 disagreeableness. The sensation of burning is another 
 object ; the sensation of a stunning blow is another 
 object; the consciousness of having acted wrongly is 
 another object. All these objects bring with them a 
 disagreeable feeling ; but in all of them the object 
 which brings the disagreeable feeling, or is accom- 
 panied by the disagreeable feeling, is quite distinguish- 
 able from the feeling of disagreeableness itself. 1 
 
 Now when it is said that what we desire is always 
 pleasure, what seems to be meant is that what we de- 
 sire is always some object the attainment of which is 
 accompanied by an agreeable feeling. But this is so 
 true that it is almost a tautology. It is clear that if we 
 desire anything, the attainment of it will bring at least 
 a temporary satisfaction ; and this satisfaction will be 
 accompanied by a feeling of satisfaction t. e. pleasure. 
 Consequently, anything that we desire may be said to 
 be a pleasure i. e. something that will bring pleasure 
 when attained. The man who desires the overthrow 
 
 1 Kfllpe and Titchener (Outline of Psychology) are honourably 
 distinguished among psychologists by the care with which they 
 have distinguished between pain and unpleasantness. Organic 
 pain seems to be a distinct sensation in quite the same sense in 
 which a sweet taste or smell is a distinct sensation. The feeling or 
 affection of pleasure and pain, though perhaps inseparable from 
 these experiences, can be distinguished from them quite clearly.
 
 74 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. IL 
 
 of a political party, for instance, will be pleased if that 
 event happens. We may consequently say that the 
 overthrow of the party was a pleasure. It is in this 
 sense that we use the phrase "an unexpected pleasure," 
 and the like. But evidently the overthrow of a politi- 
 cal party is not itself an agreeable feeling; it only 
 brings an agreeable feeling with it. The fact that we 
 desire pleasures is no evidence that we desire pleasure. 
 A passage from Mill may help to make this clear. 
 "What, for example," he asks, 1 "shall we say of the 
 love of money ? There is nothing originally more de- 
 sirable about money than about any heap of glittering 
 pebbles. Its worth is solely that of the things which 
 it will buy ; the desires for other things than itself, 
 which it is a means of gratifying. Yet the love of 
 money is not only one of the strongest moving forces 
 of human life, but money is, in many cases, desired in 
 and for itself; the desire to possess it is often stronger 
 than the desire to use it, and goes on increasing when 
 all the desires which point to ends beyond it, to be 
 compassed by it, are falling off. It may be then said 
 truly, that money is desired not for the sake of an end, 
 but as part of the end. From being a means to happi- 
 ness, it has come to be itself a principal ingredient of 
 the individual's conception of happiness. The same 
 may be said of the majority of the great objects of 
 human life power, for example, or fame. . . . The 
 strongest attraction, both of power and of fame, is the 
 immense aid they give to the attainment of our other 
 wishes ; and it is the strong association thus generated 
 between them and all our objects of desire, which gives 
 
 > Utilitarianism, chap. iv.
 
 10.] MOTIVE AND INTENTION. 75 
 
 to the direct desire of them the intensity it often as- 
 sumes, so as in some characters to surpass in strength 
 all other desires. In these cases the means have be- 
 come a part of the end, and a more important part of 
 it than any of the things which they are means to. 
 What was once desired as an instrument for the attain- 
 ment of happiness, has come to be desired for its own 
 sake. In being desired for its own sake it is, however, 
 desired as part of happiness. . . . The desire of it is 
 not a different thing from the desire of happiness, any 
 more than the love of music, or the desire of health. 
 They are included in happiness. They are some of the 
 elements of which the desire of happiness is made up. 
 Happiness is not an abstract idea, but a concrete 
 whole; and these are some of its parts." The mean- 
 ing of all this seems quite clear. Evidently money, 
 power, fame, music, and health are not parts of agree- 
 able feeling. What Mill means is that they are parts 
 of that totality of objects which gives agreeable feeling. 
 That we desire such objects, then, may show that we 
 seek pleasures, but not that we seek pleasure. And 
 that we seek pleasures is a mere tautology. It means 
 simply that we seek what we seek. 
 
 10. CAN REASON SERVE AS A MOTIVE ? Even those 
 writers who have not committed themselves to the view 
 that pleasure and pain are the only possible motives, 
 have sometimes been inclined to argue that at least 
 Reason is not capable of serving as a motive to action. 
 This view was most clearly stated by Hume, when he 
 said 1 that "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave 
 of the passions, and can never pretend to any other 
 
 i Treatise of Human Nature, Book II., Part III., Section IIL Cf. 
 also Dissertation on the Passions, Section V.
 
 76 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. n. 
 
 office than to serve and obey them." The term Pas- 
 sion, as here used, is practically synonymous with Im- 
 pulse ; and the meaning of the statement is that all 
 actions depend on particular impulses, while reason 
 can at the most only indicate the means by which these 
 impulses may be gratified. Reason, it is thus held, 
 cannot form any new motive for us : it can only show 
 how an existing motive may be pursued to the best 
 advantage. This view, however, seems to rest on that 
 false conception of the nature of desire to which reference 
 has already been made. It proceeds on the supposi- 
 tion that our mental constitution is made up of a num- 
 ber of isolated and independent desires, among which 
 reason works as a separate faculty. If we recognise 
 that our desires form a universe, then they cannot be 
 said to ex^t independently. The problem then is to 
 understand the nature of the whole within which par- 
 ticular desires emerge. If that whole is a rational sys- 
 tem, the desires which grow up in it will be very dif- 
 ferent from those desires that might exist in a being 
 in whom reason is not yet developed. In this sense, 
 therefore, reason may be said not only to guide our 
 desires, impulses, or passions, but actually to consti- 
 tute their determinate nature. Reason, that is to say, 
 may set before us ends or motives which for an irra- 
 tional being would not exist at all. In this sense, 
 then, reason is capable of furnishing us with motives 
 to action. 
 
 11. Is REASON THE ONLY MOTIVE ? There is, how- 
 ever, an error of an opposite kind against which also 
 we must be on our guard, though no doubt it is one 
 into which, in modern times, we are in much less dan- 
 ger of falling. We must not suppose that all motives
 
 12.] MOTIVE AND INTENTION. 77 
 
 are rational motives, :*. e. that the inducement to act 
 is always for a human being what it would be if he 
 were guided entirely by reason. This view may be 
 better understood by a reference to the doctrine of 
 Socrates. Socrates maintained that "virtue is know- 
 ledge, "by which he meant that if we knew with perfect 
 clearness what the nature of the moral end is we should 
 inevitably pursue it. Now it is no doubt true that 
 within a completely rational universe the supreme good 
 would serve as the supreme inducement. But if it is 
 possible that a man may know the nature of the 
 supreme good and yet not occupy a completely rational 
 universe, then it is possible to know the good and not 
 to pursue it. Now it seems clear at least that it is pos- 
 sible to know what is good with a very tolerable degree 
 of clearness, and yet not pursue it. This is expressed 
 in the familiar saying, "Video meliora proboque, de- 
 teriora sequor. " The reason of this is that the motive 
 to action is not always completely rational. 
 
 12. How MOTIVES ARE CONSTITUTED. The conclu- 
 sion, therefore, to which we are led is that motives are 
 neither constituted simply by pleasure and pain, nor 
 simply by dominant desires, passions, or impulses, nor 
 simply by reason, but that they depend upon the 
 nature of the universe within which they emerge. A 
 motive, we may say generally, is an end which is in 
 harmony or conformity with the universe within which 
 it is presented. At any given moment in our lives 
 there are various possible ends which we may set be- 
 fore ourselves. There are various ways in which the 
 content of our world might be changed, so as to be 
 more in harmony with the system of our conscious- 
 ness. Now, in so far as any such change presents itself
 
 78 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. n. 
 
 to us as something which could be brought about by 
 our own activity, it presents itself to us as a possible 
 motive to action. Whether it will actually move us to 
 act depends on the question whether the motive pre- 
 sented to us is compatible with other possible motives 
 which are presented to us at the same time. The 
 line of action that is finally willed by us is that which 
 coheres most perfectly with the general system of our 
 consciousness. Whether or not the line thus adopted 
 is a reasonable line depends on the question whether 
 or not we are living within a rational universe. 1 
 
 At this point, however, we come definitely upon the 
 question with respect to the relationship between Char- 
 acter and Conduct ; and as this is a question of great 
 importance, it seems to require a separate chapter. 
 
 1 In connection with this point, reference may be profitably made 
 to Dr. Sidgwick's article on " Unreasonable Action " (Mind, New 
 Series, Na 6), and to Mr. Stout's Analytic Psychology, VoL II., p. 267. 
 See also Bosanquet's Psychology of the Moral Self, Lecture IX. 
 
 , 
 -
 
 MOTIVE AND INTENTION. 79 
 
 NOTE ON PLEASURE AND DESIRE. 
 
 It is assumed in this chapter that a satisfied desire brings pleasure, 
 while an unsatisfied desire (or an unsatisfied appetite) is accom- 
 panied by pain. It should be observed, however, that this is a point 
 on which there has been a good deal of discussion ; and that the 
 view taken in the text is not universally adopted. The chief point 
 on which there is difference of opinion is with reference to what 
 are called " the Pleasures of Pursuit." It is held by some writers, and 
 notably by Professor Sidgwick, that, in consequence of the existence 
 of these pleasures, unsatisfied desires and appetites are frequently 
 in themselves rather pleasurable than painful. It may be well here 
 to add a few words on this point. Professor Sidgwick's view is 
 thus stated in the Methods of Ethics (Book I., chap, iv., 2, p. 48) : 
 " When a desire is having its natural effect in causing the actions 
 which tend to the attainment of its object, it seems to be commonly 
 either a neutral or a more or less pleasurable consciousness : even 
 when this attainment is still remote. At any rate the consciousness 
 of eager activity, in which this desire is an essential item, is highly 
 pleasurable : and in fact such pleasures, which we may call generally 
 the pleasures of Pursuit, constitute a considerable element in the 
 total enjoyment of life. Indeed it is almost a commonplace to say 
 that they are more important than the pleasures of Attainment : and 
 in many cases it is the prospect of the former rather than of the latter 
 that induces us to engage in a pursuit." 1 I believe that this anti- 
 thesis between "Pursuit" and "Attainment" involves a fundamental 
 misconception, and it seems to me to be of considerable importance 
 that this misconception should be removed. There is, so far as I 
 can see, no such thing as a pleasure of Pursuit, as opposed to Attain- 
 ment The truth appears to me to be rather that there are two kinds 
 of attainment what might be called progressive attainment and 
 catastrophic attainment The " pleasure of Pursuit " is, I think, in 
 reality the pleasure of progressive Attainment When it was said, 
 for instance, " If I held Truth in my hand, I would let it go again for 
 the pleasure of pursuing it," what was really intended seems to have 
 been the pleasure of progressively attaining it. And I think this is 
 
 1 For some further illustrations of Dr. Sidgwick's view, the reader 
 may be referred to Mind, New Series, vol. I, No. i (Jan. 1892), pp.
 
 8O ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. U 
 
 the case also with those pleasures that are referred to by Professof 
 Sidgwick as " pleasures of Pursuit* He takes the case, for instance, 
 of a game of skilL " No ordinary player, before entering on such a 
 contest, has any desire for victory in it : indeed he often finds it 
 difficultto imagine himself deriving gratification from such victory, 
 before he has actually engaged in the competition. What he delib- 
 erately, before the game begins, desires is not victory, but the pleas- 
 ant excitement of the struggle for it ; only for the full development 
 of this pleasure a transient desire to win the game is generally in- 
 dispensable. This desire, which does not exist at first, is stimulated 
 to considerable intensity by the competition itself : and in proportion 
 as it is thus stimulated both the mere contest becomes more pleasur- 
 able, and the victory, which was originally indifferent, comes to 
 afford a keen enjoyment* With the whole of this passage I agree, 
 with the single exception of the statement that the contest becomes 
 more pleasurable in proportion as the desire to win the game is 
 stimulated. On the contrary, it seems to me that we may distinguish 
 between two kinds of desire to win the game viz. the desire to win 
 it simply as a catastrophic result, and the desire to win it as the cul- 
 minating point in a continuous process. In proportion as the former 
 kind of desire is stimulated, it appears to me that the game ceases 
 to be pleasurable. It is, I believe, a common experience that the 
 gambler whose aim is fixed exclusively on the result of the game 
 ceases to get any real pleasure from it The man who really en joys 
 the game is he who desires victory, but desires it only as the culmi- 
 nating point in a progressive series. And the same applies in other 
 cases. The mountaineer who merely wishes to reach the topmost 
 peak, is simply annoyed by the process of climbing up : he would 
 prefer to reach it by a balloon or by a hydraulic hoist The man 
 who enjoys the ascent is the one who desires the end only in so far 
 as it gives unity and completeness to the process of attaining it So 
 also the man who is merely interested in the conclusion of a story 
 does not enjoy the novel in which it is told : his view is rather like 
 that of Christopher Sly "Tis a very excellent piece of work 
 would 'twere done ! " The man who really enjoys the story cares 
 for the end only in relation to the process that leads up to it Now 
 the man who desires an end in relation to the process of reaching 
 it, is not, I think, correctly described as receiving pleasure from a 
 pursuit, as distinguished from an attainment. The pursuit is, for 
 him, a progressive attainment From the nature of the case, he 
 could not attain otherwise than by pursuit A story, for instance, 
 does not admit of any kind of attainment but that of going through
 
 MOTIVE AND INTENTION. Si 
 
 h from beginning to end In such a process the desire receive* a 
 continuous satisfaction, and is not properly regarded as waiting for 
 Its satisfaction till the end is reached. 
 
 I conceive that this view may be applied even to such a case as 
 that of hunger. It seems to me, indeed, to be somewhat incorrect 
 to speak of the mere appetite of hunger as desire. Hunger ought, I 
 think, to be sharply distinguished from the desire for food. It seems 
 to me to be mainly owing to the failure to draw this distinction that 
 hunger is represented by Professor Sidgwick as forming an excep- 
 tion i to the general rule about the " Paradox of Hedonism." 2 It 
 forms an exception, so far as I can see, only because it is not a desire 
 at all This, however, is a side issue, on which I do not wish to 
 insist at present The craving of hunger, though not properly a 
 desire, seems to resemble certain of our desires in being susceptible 
 of a progressive satisfaction : and it is for this reason, as I conceive, 
 that the craving appears often to be pleasurable. It is pleasurable 
 because it is continuously attaining its object As far as I can judge, 
 indeed, the satisfaction of hunger begins, under normal conditions, 
 even prior to the taking of food at all. The " watering of the mouth * 
 is, I think, a commencement of satisfaction ; and in the case of pre- 
 datory animals I suspect that there is a certain satisfaction even in 
 the act of pursuit 8 At any rate, the normal act of satisfying hunger 
 does not appear to be of a catastrophic character. Ducercccenant is 
 a principle of general applicability. The satisfaction of the craving 
 is a progressive one. Now, if this is the case, it seems clear that the 
 mere fact that hunger ia, under normal conditions, rather pleasur- 
 able than otherwise (which I believe to be true), cannot be accepted 
 as a proof that the mere craving in itself is pleasurable, or is not 
 painful, in so far as it remains unsatisfied. For under normal con- 
 ditions it is not unsatisfied, but is progressively attaining its end. 4 
 
 There is another point, closely connected with this one, which ap- 
 pears to me to be overlooked by Professor Sidgwick in his discus- 
 sion on the above subject viz. that our desires and appetites are 
 capable, to a considerable extent, of an imaginative satisfaction. 
 
 i See Methods of Ethics, Book L, chap, iv., a, p. 49 : " This effect * 
 [viz. that we lose pleasure by seeking it] "is not visible, or at any 
 rate is scarcely visible, in the case of passive sensual pleasures." 
 
 * See above, 7. 
 
 * It is only in this sense, I think, that thare is any real "pleasure 
 erf pursuit" 
 
 * See also Spencer's Data of Ethia, pp. 
 
 Etb.
 
 8* ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. n. 
 
 Dlckens's " Marchioness * did not by any means stand alone in the 
 power of " making-believe very much." If it is true that 
 
 * Cowards die many times before their deaths ; 
 The valiant never taste of death but once," 
 
 it may also be said that the imaginative satisfy their desires many 
 times before they are satisfied in fact, while the unimaginative have 
 but a single satisfaction. The imaginative player, even if he loses, 
 loses but once for a score of times that he has won in fancy ; and 
 these imaginary successes may be quite as satisfying to his mind at 
 the moment as an equal number of real ones would have been. The 
 * pleasures of Pursuit * are to a large extent made up of these mental 
 victories ; and this fact must largely qualify our view of them as 
 cases of unsatisfied desire, even apart from the consideration (which 
 may not be always applicable) that the desire is in reality attaining 
 its end by means of a continuous process. 
 
 I make these remarks merely with the view of bringing out the 
 point of view which seems to me correct, and which I have adopted 
 in the present handbook. They are not by any means offered with 
 the view of giving a complete solution to the difficult question 
 involved. 1 
 
 1 Students interested in the subject of pleasures of Pursuit will find 
 further discussion and admirable illustrations in Tucker's Light of 
 tlature, cliap. vi
 
 f.] CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. 83 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. 
 
 1. GENERAL REMARKS. We now understand, in 
 some degree, what is meant by Will, Desire, Motive, 
 Intention, and what is the nature of the relationship 
 between these ; and we are now prepared to consider 
 the nature of Character and its relation to Conduct 
 In discussing this, we are naturally led to the famous 
 question about the Freedom of the Will ; for this con- 
 cerns the relationship between Character and Conduct. 
 And in considering this, it seems necessary also to ex- 
 plain the terms Circumstance and Habit. Accordingly 
 I intend first to present four sections, dealing respec- 
 tively with Character, Conduct, Circumstance, and 
 Habit, then to explain the significance of the Freedom 
 of the Will, and finally to sum up about the nature of 
 Voluntary Action. 
 
 2. CHARACTER. We have seen that Character means 
 the complete universe or system constituted by acts 
 of will of a particular kind. Character is on the whole 
 the most important element in life from the point of 
 view of Ethics, as we shall see more fully in tho 
 sequel. 
 
 The accidental dominance of a good purpose at this 
 pr that maraeni is of comparatively little consequence 
 it is an indication of the habitual dominance of
 
 ?4 ETHICS. [BK. i., crt. IIL 
 
 a certain universe. Hence Aristotle rightly laid em- 
 phasis rather on the formation of Good Habit 1 i. e. t 
 in the language we have here adopted, on the establish- 
 ment of a continuously dominant universe than on 
 the mere presence of a Good Will at any given mo- 
 ment. Will is, indeed, the expression of character, 
 but it is the expression of it under the limitations of 
 a particular time and place ; and much may remain 
 latent in the character which it would be necessary to 
 take into account in forming a complete moral estimate 
 of a given individual. This is well expressed in Brown- 
 ing's Rabbi Sen Ezra 
 
 " Not on the vulgar mass 
 
 Called ' work ' must sentence pass, 
 Things done, that took the eye and had the price ; 
 
 But all, the world's coarse thumb 
 
 And finger failed to plumb, 
 So passed in making up the main account ; 
 
 All instincts immature, 
 
 All purposes unsure, 
 That weighed not as his work, yet swelled the man's amount 
 
 Thoughts hardly to be packed 
 
 Into a narrow act, 
 Fancies that broke through language and escaped i 
 
 All I could never be, 
 
 All, men ignored in me, 
 
 This, I was worth to God, whose wheel the pitcher shaped." 
 
 At the same time, it is true that "the tree is known 
 by its fruit" The good character necessarily expresses 
 itself in good acts of wilL 
 
 3. COKDUCT. The term conduct is sometimes used 
 
 * Ethics, Book IL chap. v.
 
 J4-] CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. 8$ 
 
 In a loose sense to include all sorts of vital activities, 
 or at any rate all vital activities which are directed to 
 an end. It is in this sense, for instance, that the term 
 is employed by Mr. Herbert Spencer. 1 Consequently 
 he speaks of the conduct of molluscs, &c. a But this 
 seems to be an inconvenient extension of the meaning 
 of the term. Although the activities of molluscs are 
 no doubt adjusted to an end, yet we cannot regard 
 them as purposeful activities. A purposeful activity 
 is not merely directed to an end, but, as Kant put it, 
 directed by the idea of an end. Now even the higher 
 animals, in so far as they are guided by mere instinct, 3 
 cannot be supposed to have any such idea. They 
 move towards certain ends, but they do not will these 
 ends. They have an end, but they have no purpose.* 
 Now Mr. Spencer admits that purposeless acts are not 
 to be included in conduct. Hence it seems best to 
 confine the term conduct to those acts that are not 
 merely adjusted to ends, but also definitely willed. A 
 person's conduct, then, is the complete system of such 
 acts, corresponding to his character. 
 
 4. CIRCUMSTANCE. We have said that conduct cor- 
 responds to character. But of course the particular 
 acts which are performed by an individual depend not 
 only on the nature of the systematic unity of his con- 
 
 1 Data of Ethics, chap, L I hid., chap. iL 
 
 It may well be doubted whether they ever have such an idea. 
 Darwin, however, who is certainly a high authority, seems disposed 
 to attribute some consciousness of the adaptation of means to end 
 even to such very humble creatures as earthworms. 
 
 4 It might be convenient to use the term purposive, as distinguished 
 from purposeful, to denote action (such as instinctive movements) 
 in which an end may be seen to be involved, but in which there i$ 
 CO definite consciousness of the end aimed at.
 
 86 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. m. 
 
 sciousness, but also on the conditions or environment 
 within which his life happens to be passed. Hence it 
 is sometimes said that a man's conduct depends upon 
 his character and circumstances. We must now con- 
 sider what exactly is to be understood by circum- 
 stances. 
 
 In the first place, we must note that, if we are to 
 understand the ethical significance of a man's circum- 
 stances, we must clear our minds of that view accord- 
 ing to which circumstances are simply the external 
 environment in which a man's life is passed. Under- 
 stood in this sense, any contemporary event might be 
 called a circumstance e. g. the position of the planets, 
 the state of the tides, the direction of the wind, &c. 
 But for most purposes (unless we are believers in Astro- 
 logy), such conditions are not to be classed as circum- 
 stances at all. Again, the geological formation of the 
 country in which a man lives is seldom worth reckon- 
 ing as a circumstance ; though the presence of gold 
 or coal or iron may be a circumstance of considerable 
 importance. Riches or poverty, health or disease, are 
 generally circumstances of more importance ; and so 
 are, in general, a man's social surroundings. From 
 such considerations as this we may see that it is not 
 so easy as it might at first appear to determine what a 
 man's circumstances are, in any sense that is ethically 
 significant Circumstances in this sense are not any- 
 thing external to the man, but only external conditions 
 in so far as they enter into his life. What are to bo 
 reckoned circumstances in this sense, is a question that 
 depends on the character of the man. Hence it is some- 
 what misleading to speak as if character and ciicum- 
 stance were two co-ordinate factors in human life;
 
 4-] CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. 8/ 
 
 since it depends largely on character whether anything 
 is to be reckoned a circumstance or not. 1 
 
 Again, are we to say that the fact that a man has 
 a good memory, or a good temper, or a good under- 
 standing, or a good reputation, is an element in his 
 character or in his circumstance ? Such facts depend 
 largely on the systematic constitution of a man's con- 
 scious life, and so belong to his character ; yet, on the 
 other hand, they may be regarded as circumstances 
 by which he is helped or hindered in the conduct of his 
 life. Even the fact that a man has already formed a 
 good habit of action say, a habit of punctuality may 
 be a favourable circumstance with reference to his future 
 development Thus it is to a considerable extent a 
 question of the point of view from which a thing is 
 regarded, whether it is to be described as an element 
 of character or of circumstance. Probably by far the 
 greatest part of any man's present circumstance is 
 simply the expression of what his past character has 
 been. 
 
 Hence, when we say that a man's actions are the 
 result of his character and his circumstance, we must 
 remember that two men living to all appearance in the 
 same general conditions may in reality be in wholly 
 different circumstances. What stimulates one may 
 depress another, just as "the twilight that sends the 
 hens to roost sets the fox to prowl, and the lion's roar 
 which gathers the jackals scatters the sheep." 3 What 
 
 1 Some suggestive remarks on this point will be found in a paper 
 on " Character and the Emotions," by Mr. A. F. Shand, in Mind, new 
 series, VoL v., No. 18. The relationship between character and cir- 
 cumstance has also been brought out, in a profound and suggestivo 
 way, by Mr. Bosanquet, in Aspects of the Social Problem. 
 
 Art " Psychology " in Encyclopaedia Britatwica, p. 42.
 
 88 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. III. 
 
 is physically the same is in such cases, to all intents, 
 a different circumstance. 
 
 5. HABIT. The significance of Habit has already 
 been to some extent indicated in connection with char- 
 acter, and in particular reference has been made to 
 Aristotle's view that the main thing in the moral life 
 is the establishment of good habits. This view was 
 put forward by Aristotle in opposition to the Socratic 
 doctrine, that Virtue is a kind of Knowledge ; * yet the 
 two views are not so much opposed as might at first 
 sight appear. Virtue is a kind of knowledge, as well as 
 a kind of habit. It is, in fact, as we have already 
 indicated, a point of view. The virtuous man is one 
 who lives continuously in the universe which is con- 
 stituted by duty. To live continuously in that universe 
 is a habit ; but it is at the same time a species of 
 insight. The man who lives in a different universe 
 sees things habitually in a different way through a 
 differently coloured glass, we might say. To be virtu- 
 ous, therefore, is to possess habitually a certain kind 
 of knowledge or insight. And thus both Socrates and 
 Aristotle were right. Virtue is both a kind of know- 
 ledge and a kind of habit. Habit, in fact, in the sense 
 in which the term is applied to moral character, is not 
 mere custom. It is not on a level with habits such 
 as our manner of walking or speaking or of wearing 
 clothes. It is not, in short, of the nature of what is 
 commonly called a secondarily automatic action. It 
 is a habit of willing. Habits which have a moral signi- 
 
 i Cf. Sidgwick's History of Ethics, pp. 24-5 and 54 ; and, for a fullet 
 account of the doctrine of Socrates, see Zeller's Socrates and the So* 
 crate Schools, Part II., chap. vii.
 
 5-] CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. 89 
 
 ficance are habits of deliberate choice. f Now deliber- 
 ate choice depends on thought or reason.' In order 
 to choose the right, in the sense in which such a choice 
 has any moral significance, we must know the right. 
 If we simply hit on the right course by chance, we do 
 not really choose the right. Right willing, therefore, 
 depends on true insight. Whether it is possible to 
 have true insight without willing rightly is a further 
 question, which we shall have to consider shortly. In 
 the meantime we may partly see what Socrates meant 
 by saying that virtue is a kind of knowledge. It 
 depends on the occupation of a certain point of view, 
 on the possession of a certain rational insight. At the 
 same time, we see the truth of Aristotle's saying that 
 virtue is habit. It is not merely a certain act of will, 
 but a continuous state of character, a steadfast occu- 
 pation of a definite universe. 
 
 Another point which it is important to notice in this 
 connection is that action which has thus become 
 habitual tends to be pleasant. A good character, for 
 instance, is one whose dominant interest lies within a 
 certain form of moral universe. Such a character will 
 find pleasure in acting in accordance with this interest 
 Hence Aristotle says again 3 that " a man is not good 
 at all unless he takes pleasure in noble deeds. No one 
 would call a man just who did not take pleasure in 
 doing justice, nor generous, who took no pleasure in 
 acts of generosity, and so on." Further, habit, as is 
 said, becomes a second nature ; so that actions that 
 
 I'E^U- &pa. 4 iprri) fi irpoaipeTurf ("Virtue, then, is a habit of 
 choice"). Aristotle's Ethics, II. vi. 15. 
 Cf. Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, Book II., chap. ii. 
 * Nicomachean Ethics, I. viii 12.
 
 90 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. IIL 
 
 have become habitual are done almost instinctively, 
 at least without the necessity for definite reflection. 
 It is important to bear this in mind. Its application 
 will become especially apparent when we are dealing 
 with some of the theories of Kant. 
 
 6. THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL. We are now in a 
 position to consider what is meant by human freedom, 
 in so far as this has ethical significance. 
 
 Some views on this point may almost immediately 
 be ruled out of court. Thus, it has been argued that 
 there is no real freedom, since men are determined by 
 circumstances. This was the doctrine, for instance, of 
 Robert Owen, the Socialist. Accordingly, he made 
 it his great aim in life tc improve men's external con- 
 ditions. But we have seen that mere external condi- 
 tions are not circumstances in any sense that is ethically 
 important. Before setting ourselves to improve men's 
 conditions, we should ask ourselves how far their con- 
 ditions are real circumstances to them, and what sort 
 of circumstances they are. To ask this is at the same 
 time to ask what sort of people they are. It is a com 
 plete mistake to suppose that men are determined 
 by conditions that are in any true sense external to 
 them. 
 
 Again, freedom is sometimes understood to mean 
 the power of acting without motives. But this also is 
 an absurdity. To act without motives, **. e. without 
 reference to anything that may reasonably serve as an 
 inducement to action, would be to act from blind im- 
 pulse, as some of the lower animals may be supposed 
 to do. But this is evidently the very reverse of what 
 re understand by freedom. 
 
 In order to avoid such crude misconceptions as
 
 7-] CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. 9! 
 
 these, it is important to consider in what sense the 
 Idea of freedom is ethically significant. 
 
 7. FREEDOM ESSENTIAL TO MORALS. There is involved 
 in the moral consciousness the conviction that we 
 ought to act in one way rather than in another, that 
 one manner of action is good or right, and another 
 bad or evil. Now, as Kant urged, there would be no 
 meaning in an "ought" if it ^ere not accompanied by 
 a ' ' can. " * It does not follow, however, that the ' ' can " 
 refers to an immediate possibility. A man ought to be 
 wise, for instance ; but wisdom is a quality that can 
 only be gradually developed. What can be done at 
 once is only to put ourselves in the way of acquiring 
 it Similarly, we ought to love our neighbours. But 
 love is a feeling that cannot be produced at will. 3 We 
 can only put ourselves in the way of cultivating kindly 
 affections. But it would be absurd to say that a man 
 ought to add a cubit to his stature or to live for two 
 hundred years. He cannot even put himself in the 
 way of attaining these ends, and they cannot therefore 
 form any part of his duty. Now if a man's will were 
 absolutely determined by his circumstances, it would 
 be strictly impossible for him to become anything but 
 
 1 Cf. the lines of Emerson 
 
 " So nigh is grandeur to our dust, 
 
 So near is God to man, 
 When Duty whispers low, Thou must, 
 
 The youth replies, / can* 
 
 * For this reason Kant even denies that love is a duty. See Mcta- 
 pkysic of Morals, section I. (Abbott's translation, pp. 15-16). But love 
 can be cultivated, though it cannot be directly produced. Kant's 
 view on this and kindred points is due to the absolute antithesis 
 which he makes between Reason and Feeling. Cf. Caird's Critical 
 Philosophy of Kant, voL ii. pp. 280-282. See also below, Book IL, 
 chap, iii, 13.
 
 92 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. Ill, 
 
 that which he does become, and consequently it would 
 be impossible that he ought to be anything different. 
 There would thus be no "ought "at all. Moral im- 
 peratives would cease to have any meaning. ' If, then, 
 there is to be any meaning in the moral imperative, 
 the will must not be absolutely determined by circum- 
 stances, but must in some sense be free. This is true 
 also even if we do not, like Kant, think of the moral 
 end as of the nature of an imperative, but rather as a 
 Good or Ideal to be attained. 2 It still remains true 
 that such an ideal must be, as Aristotle put it, Kpaxrtv xa\ 
 XTTJTOV &vOptoit<p (practicable and attainable by man). 
 
 8. NECESSITY ESSENTIAL TO MORALS. Nevertheless, 
 there is a sense also in which necessity is required for 
 the moral life- The moral life consists, as we have 
 endeavoured to point out, in the formation of char- 
 acter. Now to have a character is to live habitually 
 in a certain universe. And in any given universe 
 desires have a definite position with reference to one 
 another ; so that there can be no doubt which is to 
 give place to another. Hence the more decidedly a 
 character is formed, the more uniform will be its choice 
 
 1 Hence purely determinist writers when they are quite con- 
 sistent, deny the existence of any absolute "ought," and regard 
 Ethics not as a normative science, but as an ordinary natural 
 history science investigating what men do or tend to do, not what 
 they ought to do. This is the view, for instance, which is taken 
 by Schopenhauer (who, in spite of his emphasis on the Will, was to 
 all intents a pure determinist). Cf. Janet's Theory of Morals, p. 13^ 
 Another good example of pure determinism, accompanied by the 
 denial of the unity of the self, leading to a natural history view of 
 Ethics, will be found in Simmers Einleitungin die Moralwissenschaft 
 Bentham's attitude to some extent illustrates the same thing. Se 
 below, Book II., chap, iv., 5. 
 
 See below, Book II H chap, ii
 
 9-1 CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. 93 
 
 and its action. Nay, even in the case of characters 
 that are imperfectly formed, any uncertainty that 
 exists with regard to the action is due only to our im- 
 perfect knowledge. It is difficult to predict what will 
 be done by a man who is continually shifting from one 
 universe to another. But his action would be fully 
 foreseen by any one who knew exactly the relation in 
 which these universes stand to one another in his 
 mental life. And not only is this true as a fact with 
 regard to the moral lives of men, but it must be true if 
 the moral life is to have any meaning. The moral 
 life means the building up of character, f. e. it means 
 the forming of definite habits of action. And if a 
 habit of action be definite, it is uniform and predict- 
 able. Now necessity is often understood to mean 
 nothing more than uniformity. In this sense, then, 
 necessity is required for the moral life. 
 
 9. THE TRUE SENSE OF FREEDOM. It is apt to seem 
 as if there were a certain contradiction between theso 
 two demands of the moral life. But there is no con- 
 tradiction when we observe precisely what is the 
 nature of the freedom and what is the nature of the 
 necessity that is demanded. The necessity means 
 simply the uniform activity of a given character. The 
 freedom, on the other hand, means simply the absence 
 of determination by anything outside the character 
 itself. A vicious man in a sense can, and in, a sense 
 cannot, do a good action. He cannot, in the sense 
 that a good action does not issue from such a char- 
 acter as his; A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good 
 fruit. But he can do the action, in the sense that there 
 is nothing to prevent him except his character i". e. 
 except himself. Now a man cannot stand outside of
 
 94 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. in. 
 
 himself, and regard a defect in his own character as 
 something by which his action is hindered. If he can, 
 but for himself, ht can in the only sense that is required 
 for morality. To be free means that one is determined 
 by nothing but oneself. 1 What this means, how- 
 ever, we must endeavour to explain somewhat more 
 fully. 
 
 10. ANIMAL SPONTANEITY. Consider in what sense 
 an animal is free. As compared with a plant or a 
 stone, it evidently has a certain spontaneity. It is not 
 moved from without, as a stone seems to be, but con- 
 ducts itself in accordance with its own inner feelings. 
 It should be observed, however, that even a stone is 
 not moved entirely from without. No rock was ever 
 thrown to the ground without its own consent. What 
 we call the laws of nature in obedience to which stones 
 are raised or thrown down, are laws of the stone's 
 nature as well as of things outside of it. " The hyssop 
 grows in the wall, because the whole universe cannot 
 prevent it from growing. " * This is as true as to say 
 that it grows there because the whole universe makes 
 it grow. The law is within it quite as truly as it is 
 without it. In this sense Hegel was no doubt right in 
 saying that the planets run round the sun freely like 
 the immortal gods. "The sun attracts them," it is 
 
 1 Those writers who insist on the fact that there is determination 
 or law in all our actions, and who on this ground deny freedom, are 
 commonly known as Necessitarians. On the other hand, those who 
 insist on liberty to such an extent as to deny all law or determination 
 in human conduct, are called Libertarians or Indeterminists. It is 
 now generally recognized that these two schools of writers simply 
 represent opposite sides of the same trutli, and that the idea of self* 
 eU,cnntnarit.in combines the two sides. 
 
 * Carlyle, I think, says this ; 1 do not remember where.
 
 II.] CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. 95 
 
 said. But the sun could not attract them unless they 
 were willing to be attracted i. e. unless it lay in their 
 own nature to be attracted. Still, we do not usually 
 think of the planets, or of inanimate nature generally, 
 as having any spontaneity in its motions. And rightly. 
 The movements of the planets are not determined by 
 themselves ; for they have no selves. The law is as 
 truly within them as without them ; but it is also as 
 truly without them as within them. It is, as we say, 
 a "law of nature" generally, and does not belong to 
 any one thing in particular. There is no centre to 
 which the movement can strictly be referred. In the 
 case of an animal it is different. Here there is a self, 
 there is a centre of reference viz. the consciousness 
 of the animal itself. It is from that point that the 
 movement proceeds, and we say therefore that it is 
 spontaneous. 
 
 11. HUMAN LIBERTY. Yet a mere animal has not a 
 self in the full sense of the term. Its self is simply the 
 feeling of the moment. It has not a definite universe 
 of reference. A man's self, on the other hand, is the 
 universe in which he habitually lives. For this reason, 
 a man is free in a sense in which an animal is not free. 
 If an animal could be supposed to think and speak, it 
 could not refer its actions to itself, but only to its im- 
 pulse at this or that moment. ' No doubt, there would 
 be a certain continuity and predictability in its im- 
 pulses ; yet at each moment they would have a certain 
 
 1 Cf. Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, pp. 158-9. " An animal which 
 does not have the power of proposing ends to itself is impelled to 
 action by its wants and appetites just as they come into conscious- 
 ness. It is irritated into acting." See also Gizycki's Introduction to 
 th Study of Ethics, chap, vi.
 
 96 ETHICS. [BK. i. t CH. in. 
 
 independence, and would not refer to a common centre. 
 This, of course, means simply that the animal does nol 
 think, and consequently does not bring the moments 
 of its consciousness to a unity. Man, on the other 
 hand, lives within the universe of his character. In 
 so far as his momentary impulses do not reflect and 
 reveal that character, he does not regard them as, 
 strictly speaking, his own. His acts are his own only 
 when he is himself in doing them i. e. when they flow 
 from the centre of his habitual universe. He has thus 
 a centre of action which has a certain relative perma- 
 nence ; and for this reason his acts are free in a sense 
 in which the movements of a mere animal, though 
 spontaneous, are not free. * 
 
 12. THE HIGHEST FREEDOM. We see, then, that 
 there are higher and lower senses of freedom. Even 
 a stone is not simply determined from without. An 
 animal has spontaneity. But man has freedom in a 
 higher sense than either of these. This fact naturally 
 suggests the inquiry whether the ordinary freedom of 
 
 1 Those writers who have insisted on determination, to the exclu. 
 sion of freedom, have generally also denied the unity of the indivi- 
 dual self or character. Thus Hume (who may be regarded as the 
 founder of the determinist school in modern times) says (Treatise on 
 Human Nature, Book I., Part IV., section vi.) : " When I enter most 
 intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some par- 
 ticular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or 
 hatred, pain or pleasure "; and he consequently concludes that the 
 self or personality is "nothing but a bundle or collection of differ- 
 ent perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable 
 rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement" Mill also ac- 
 cepted this view. See his Examination of Sir W. Hamilton, chap. xiL 
 For criticisms of it, see Green's edition of Hume, vol. L, Introd., 
 } 342, and Dr. Ward's article on " Psychology " in the Encyclopedia 
 Britannia*, p. &
 
 12.] CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. 97 
 
 a man is freedom in the highest sense, or whether 
 there is the possibility of a freedom of a still higher 
 kind. 
 
 The answer seems clearly to be that there 13 a freedom 
 of a still higher kind. This follows at once from the 
 fact that there is a sel/ot a still higher kind. This is a 
 point which we shall have to consider more fully in 
 the sequel. In the meantime, we may anticipate so 
 far as to say that, in a certain sense, no form of self 
 can be regarded as ultimately real except the rational 
 self. If this is so, the only true or ultimate freedom 
 will be the freedom that consists in acting from this 
 self as a centre. This is recognised even in ordinary 
 language. The man who acts irrationally is said to 
 be " enslaved by his passions. " He is thus not thor- 
 oughly free. And indeed, there are times when a 
 man feels that his irrational acts are not, strictly 
 speaking, his own. His true self lies deeper. This 
 seems to have been felt by the writer in the Pauline 
 Epistles, when he referred his shortcomings not to him- 
 self, but to "sin that dwelleth in me." Here he iden- 
 tifies himself with the higher or rational self. Yet in 
 another passage he seems to identify himself rather 
 with the lower self, when he says, "It is no longer I 
 that live, but Christ that liveth in me." Here "I" 
 refers to the lower self the habitual character of the 
 individual while the higher or true self is referred to 
 as "Christ," living in him and gradually coming to 
 complete realisation. There are, in fact, we may say, 
 three selves in every man. There is the self that is 
 revealed in occasional impulses which we cannot quite 
 subdue, the "sin " that, after all, dwelleth in us. On 
 
 the other hand, there is the permanent character, the 
 Eth.
 
 98 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. m. 
 
 universe in which we habitually live. ' And finally there 
 is the true or rational self, in which alone we feel that 
 we can rest with satisfaction the "Christ" (to adopt 
 the Pauline metaphor) that liveth in us, and in whom 
 we hope more and more to abide. And, as it is said 
 elsewhere, " his service is perfect freedom." It may, 
 in a certain sense, be maintained that there is no 
 other perfect freedom. The only ultimate self is the 
 rational self; and the only ultimate freedom is the free- 
 dom that we have when we are rational. This, how- 
 ever, is a point that cannot be fully understood until 
 we have considered the nature of the moral ideal. 
 
 The significance of all this may perhaps become 
 more apparent as we proceed. In the meantime we 
 may now sum up the results at which we have arrived 
 with respect to the nature of Conduct or Voluntary 
 Action. 
 
 13. THE NATURE OF VOLUNTARY ACTION. A definite 
 illustration may perhaps help to make the nature of 
 the various elements in voluntary action clear to us. 
 
 Take the case of the desire of food. The first ele- 
 ment involved in this is the mere animal appetite. This 
 we may suppose to be at first a mere blind impulse 
 analogous to the organic impulse by which a flower 
 turns to the light ; but it is distinguished from such a 
 vegetable impulse by the presence of consciousness. 
 In this consciousness there are two main elements 
 
 i Even this may not be quite simple. " Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach I 
 in dieser Brust," said Faust (" Two souls, alas ! live in this breast of 
 mine ") ; and the same could, in some degree, be said by most men. 
 " I am double," said Renan ; " sometimes one part of myself laughs, 
 while the other cries." In cases of madness, the two selves often 
 bv'corae very distinctly separated.
 
 1 3.] CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. 99 
 
 the ideal presentation, in vague outline, 1 of the object 
 striven towards, and a feeling of pleasure and pain, 
 The latter feeling is twofold : there is a sense of plea- 
 sure in the anticipated satisfaction, and a sense of un- 
 easiness connected with the consciousness of its ab- 
 sence. Thus in the appetite of hunger there is a pecu- 
 liar craving, partly pleasant and partly uneasy, accom- 
 panied by a more or less vague consciousness of the 
 kind of object that would yield satisfaction. x Desire is 
 distinguished from mere appetite by the definite pre- 
 sence of a consciousness of the object as an end to be 
 aimed at. The appetite of hunger involves a vague 
 uneasiness, a vague consciousness of the kind of object 
 that would remove the uneasiness, a vague anticipation 
 of pleasure in its attainment. Desire of food, on the 
 other hand, is a definite presentation of the idea of food 
 as an end to be sought. In this presentation, as in the 
 more vague presentation of the object in appetite, there 
 is also involved an element of pleasure and pain. The 
 object thus definitely presented as an end in desire la 
 what is most properly understood by a motive. Such 
 motives may conflict : the ends involved may be in- 
 compatible with one another. Hence the desires gov- 
 erned by these motives may remain in abeyance. The 
 object presented as a desirable end may not be defi- 
 nitely chosen as an end i. e. it may not become a 
 wish. A wish is a desire selected. It is a desire on 
 which attention has been concentrated, and which has 
 thus secured a certain dominance in our consciousness. 
 The wish for food is more than the mere desire for food. 
 It is a concentrated desire. But even this is still not an 
 
 1 It is open to doubt whether this element is present in the animal 
 censtioutacM at all. Cf. above, chap. L, 3.
 
 loo ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. in. 
 
 act of will. An act of will involves, besides, a definite 
 purpose or intention ; i. e. in an act of will we do not 
 merely concentrate our attention on an end as a good 
 to be sought ; but, in addition, we regard it as an end 
 to be brought about by us. The purpose of procuring 
 food the intention, for instance, of working for a 
 livelihood is more than the mere wish for food, more 
 than a mere prayer or aspiration. Will, however, in- 
 volves, further, an actual energising. A purpose or 
 intention refers to the future, and may not be carried 
 out. In an act of will the idea becomes a force. How 
 this is done is a difficult question to answer ; and, hap- 
 pily, it is not a problem that we require here to solve. 
 We have merely to notice this element of active energis- 
 ing as involved in an Act of Will. The man who wills 
 to procure food does not merely intend to work, but 
 actually does exert himself. Finally, character is a 
 formed habit e. g. the habit of activity in some par- 
 ticular industrial pursuit. f 
 
 iMr. Stout's article on "Voluntary Action," already referred to, 
 should be consulted on several of these points,
 
 CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. IOI 
 
 NOTE ON RESPONSIBILITY. 
 
 In modern times the interest in the question of the Freedom of the 
 Will has been stimulated mainly by the desire to have a clear view 
 of human responsibility. 1 The Mediaeval conceptions ot Heaven and 
 Hell gave special force to this desire. God was thought of as a 
 supreme Judge, standing outside the world, and apportioning infinite 
 rewards and punishments in accordance with the lives which men 
 had led, or, as some rather thought, in accordance with the beliefs 
 which they had entertained. This doctrine presented serious difficul- 
 ties. On the one hand, if Liberty of Indifference were asserted, if 
 men were supposed to have the power of acting " without motives," 
 of choosing a particular line of conduct without reference to their 
 characters i. e. to the universe of desires within which they have 
 habitually lived this appeared to be both unintelligible in itself and 
 to involve too strong an assertion of the freedom of a merely created, 
 finite, and dependent being. On the other hand, if man were held 
 to be free only in the sense that he is self-determined, it appeared 
 as if he could not be regarded as ultimately responsible for the build- 
 ing up of his own character, for the selection of the universe within 
 which he was to live. This difficulty was felt as early as the time 
 of St Paul ; and the only solution of it seems to lie in the acknowl- 
 edgment that it is a mystery. Credo quia absurdum. 
 
 A. similar difficulty, however, conies up even at the present time 
 with reference to the responsibility of the individual to society. 
 How, it is asked, can any one be regarded as responsible for the 
 formation of his own character, seeing that he is born with particular 
 inherited aptitudes and tendencies, and that the whole development 
 of his life is determined by the moral atmosphere in which he is 
 placed ? In a sense we choose our own universes ; but the " we," 
 the self that chooses, is not an undetermined existence. We are 
 ushered into the world with a certain predisposition to good or to 
 evil in particular directions. Over this " original sin," or original 
 virtue, which lies in our disposition from the first, we have no con- 
 trol. It is ourselves ;' it constitutes the particular nature which we 
 inherit ; and the directions in which it moves us depend on the cir- 
 cumstances in which we grow up. How, then, is society entitled to 
 punish us for our offences ? Even so firm an upholder of personal 
 independence, and so stern an advocate of the punishment of crime, 
 as Thomas Carlyle, admitted, and even insisted, that a man's char- 
 
 i Cf. below, Book III., chap, vi, 7.
 
 102 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. III. 
 
 aoter I* an inheritance, and that the development of it is affected by 
 bodily qualities. Thus, notwithstanding his strenuous insistence on 
 the doctrine that every man is the shaper of his own destiny, we 
 find him, in his Essay on Sir Walter Scott, making this candid admis- 
 sion : " Disease, which is but superficial, and issues in outer lameness, 
 does not cloud the young existence ; rather forwards it towards the 
 expansion it is fitted for. The miserable disease had been one of the 
 internal nobler parts, marring the general organisation ; under which 
 no Walter Scott could have been forwarded, or with all his other 
 endowments could have been producible or possible." What, then, 
 becomes of responsibility ? Have we not here a puzzle or antinomy 
 as real as that with which the Mediaeval Theology was perplexed ? 
 
 But the answer to this has been partly seen already. If a man were 
 a mere animal, the only reasonable course would be to take him as 
 we find him. In that case, the only justification of punishment 1 
 would be found in the hope of effecting, by means of it, some im- 
 provement in the disposition of him who is punished. But a man 
 cannot regard himself as a mere animal, nor can a society of men 
 regard its members as simply animals. They must be regarded as 
 beings animated by an ideal, which they are bound to aim at realis- 
 ing, and which they can realise as soon as they become aware of 
 the obligation. No man could regard it as an excuse for his evil 
 conduct, that he is a mere brute beast, who knows no better. Nor 
 could a society accept this as an excuse for any of its members. 
 Whether a God, sitting outside as an external Judge, ought not to 
 accept it as an excuse, is quite another question, ivith which we have 
 here no concern. Our question is merely with regard to the way in 
 which a man or a society of men must judge human conduct And, 
 from this point of view, it is quite sufficient to say that men must 
 regard themselves and others as soldiers of the ideal ; that those 
 who fail to struggle for it must be treated as deserters, and those 
 who deny its authority as guilty of Use majestt against the dignity 
 of human nature. There is no stone wall in the way of a man's 
 moral progress. There is only himself. And he cannot accept him- 
 self as a mere fact, but only as a fact ruled by an ideal 
 
 I cannot hope that such remarks as these will remove all difficul- 
 ties from the mind of the student The question, however, when 
 pressed beyond a certain point, begins to be rather of metaphysical 
 and theological than of strictly ethical importance. 3 
 
 1 See below, Book III., chap, vi., 6. 
 
 a A complete discussion of this difficult question would evidently
 
 CHARACTER AND CONDUCT. IO3 
 
 carry us far beyond the limits of such a handbook as the present I 
 have touched upon it here only so far as seemed necessary to bring 
 out its bearing upon Ethics. For fuller discussion the reader may 
 be referred to Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, Book II., chap, t, 
 Green's Collected Works, pp. 308 333, Bradley's Ethical Studies, 
 Essay I., Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics, Book I., chap, v., Caird's 
 Critical Philosophy of Kant, Book II., chap, iii., Martineau's Study of 
 Religion, Book III., chap, ii., Alexander's Moral Order and Progress, 
 pp. 336341, Gizycki's Introduction to the Study of Ethics, chap, vi., 
 Stephen's Science of Ethics, pp. 278293, and Seth's Study of Ethical 
 Principles, Part III., chap. i. Cf. also Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, 
 Part I., chap, iii., Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, pp. 50 54, Lotze's 
 Practical Philosophy, chap, iii., and Calderwood's Handbook of Moral 
 Philosophy, Part II., chaps, iii. and iv. The views of Green, Bradley, 
 Caird, Alexander, Gizycki, Dewey, and Muirhead are in the main in 
 agreement with that here stated. Lotze, Martineau, Calderwood, 
 and Seth defend freedom, though generally rejecting Liberty of In- 
 difference in its most extreme form. Sidgwick takes up a neutral 
 position. Stephen is a Determinist, and does not fully recognise the 
 fact of self-determination. The same remark applies on the whole 
 to the excellent discussion of Freedom in Simmel's recent Einleitung 
 in die Moralwissenscliaft, Vol. II., chap. vi.
 
 104 ETHIC*. [BK. I., CH. IV. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE EVOLUTION OF CONDUCT. 
 
 1. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. Conduct, like other 
 aspects of human life, undergoes a steady process of 
 development, both in the individual and in the race. 
 This development is closely connected with the gen- 
 eral development of the forms and customs of 
 social life, and thus forms part of the material which 
 it is the business of the young science of Sociology to 
 investigate. 
 
 Recent writers on Sociology have tended to lay a 
 good deal of emphasis on the class of phenomena 
 described by the terms Imitation and Suggestion, as 
 throwing light on the development of social customs. 1 
 These conceptions are probably inadequate in dealing 
 with the higher elements in social development ; but 
 they do seem to be of value in dealing with the 
 more primitive facts of human and animal life, and 
 they may thus serve as a convenient point of de- 
 parture. 
 
 It seems to be a general truth in Psychology that 
 every presentation involving the idea of movement 
 brings with it a more or less definite "suggestion " of 
 the movement involved t. e. gives rise to a certain 
 tendency to perform the movement. This is es- 
 
 1 French writers in particular, such as Guyau and Tarde, have 
 laid great emphasis on facts of this class.
 
 2.] THE EVOLUTION OF CONDUCT. lOj 
 
 pecially true when the movement conveyed to an 
 animal being in idea is one for the performance of 
 which its bodily organs are adapted. It then gives 
 rise to movements which may be described as il imita- 
 tions " of the original movement it being borne in 
 mind that they are not to be regarded as conscious im- 
 itations, but rather as being of the nature of "sugges- 
 tion." There can be little doubt that the facts of lan- 
 guage and other expressive movements are to a large 
 extent to be explained in this way ; and so also, in all 
 probability, are many of the instinctive actions * of the 
 lower animals and many of the customs of primitive 
 peoples. Some further remarks on this point may 
 suffice as an introduction to the subject. 
 
 2. GERMS OF CONDUCT IN THE LOWER ANIMALS. 
 Though it is perhaps true that Conduct, in the stricter 
 sense of the term, is not to be found at all in the 
 actions of the lower animals, yet it is certainly the 
 case that we may detect in them the germs of that 
 which becomes conduct in man. If animals can 
 seldom be credited with any direct consciousness of 
 an end, they are at least led by certain natural im- 
 pulses to the accomplishment of ends of which they 
 
 i It is still an undecided question, what exactly should be under- 
 stood by instinct ; and any discussion of it would obviously be out of 
 place here. Some writers limit the term to forms of activity that 
 are innate ; but if Principal Lloyd Morgan is right in thinking that 
 nothing is innate in animals except physiological tendencies to cer- 
 tain forms of action when an appropriate stimulus is presented, in- 
 stinct in the psychological sense would seem, on this interpretation, 
 to be reduced to zero. (See his work on Comparative Psychology 
 and his more recent book on Habit and Instinct). For our present 
 purpose, I prefer to understand the term as including all movements 
 that presuppose nothing more (from the psychological point of view) 
 than percepts and perceptual images.
 
 io6 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. iv. 
 
 are themselves unaware. Like the makers of the 
 cathedrals, they "build better than they know," their 
 instincts often carry them more certainly to the 
 attainment of the ends of their species than human 
 reason guides us. Now the nature of instinct is 
 largely involved in obscurity. It seems partly to de- 
 pend on hereditary impulses to action under particu- 
 lar forms of stimulus ; but to some extent also it 
 seems to be acquired in the lifetime of the individual 
 animal, and to be developed under the influence ot 
 suggestion. The young of a species learn by imita- 
 tion of the more mature. 1 This is especially seen iu 
 
 1 Here again the facts of the case are somewhat open to dispute. 
 The following extract may be given from Principal Lloyd Morgan, 
 who is probably our best authority on such subjects. " If one of a 
 group of chicks learn by casual experience, such as I have before 
 described; to drink from a tin of water, others will run up and peck 
 at the water, and will themselves drink. A hen teaches her little 
 ones to pick up grain or other food by pecking on the ground and 
 dropping suitable materials before them, the -chicks seeming to 
 imitate her actions. One may make chicks and young pheasants 
 peck by simulating the action of a hen with a pencil-point or pair of 
 fine forceps. According to Mr. Peal's statement, before quoted, the 
 Assamese find that young jungle pheasants will perish if their peck- 
 ing responses are not thus stimulated ; and Prof. Claypole tells me 
 that this is also the case with ostriches hatched in an incubator 
 
 It is certainly much easier to bring up young birds 
 
 if older ones are setting an example of eating and drinking ; and 
 instinctive actions, such as scratching "the ground, are performed 
 earlier if imitation be not excluded. A number of sim- 
 ilar cases might be given. But what impresses the observer, as he 
 watches the early development of a brood of young birds, is the 
 presence of an imitative tendency which is exemplified in many 
 little ways not easy to describe in detail" (Habit and Instinct, pp. 
 166167)^ No doubt in all such cases congenital aptitude (and per- 
 haps also congenital impulse) is presupposed. How much may 
 fairly be ascribed to heredity and how much to suggestion, is a dif- 
 ficult problem, with which, happily, we are not here concerned
 
 3,] THE EVOLUTION OF CONDUCT. IO7 
 
 the case of the more gregarious animals, in which, 
 as in the familiar case of sheep, the movements 
 of leaders are observed, and in which certain habi- 
 tual forms of activity grow up, 1 almost similar to 
 the customary morality of human beings. Some- 
 times also penalties seem even to be attached to vio- 
 lations of the customs that have grown up within 
 the herd. In this we see the germs both of moral 
 action and of moral judgment, though it would prob- 
 ably be going too far to say that there is anything 
 more than the germs of them. 
 
 3. CONDUCT AMONG SAVAGES. Among savages also 
 the moral consciousness is largely still in germ. 
 Their actions are to a great extent impulsive, and 
 show little sign of forethought with regard to distant 
 consequences. Yet they are by no means left to the 
 guidance of individual caprice. The savage is a 
 member of a tribe, and his life is hedged about by 
 customary observances, of which the purpose is not 
 always very apparent. In the formation of these, sug- 
 gestion and conscious imitation no doubt play a con- 
 siderable part ; and even when an end can be de- 
 tected, it must not always be assumed that it was 
 consciously present to the minds of those who were 
 led to adopt the means to its attainment. 
 
 4. THE GUIDANCE OF CONDUCT BY CUSTOM. Even 
 after mankind have to a considerable extent emerged 
 from savagery, the influence of custom in the deter- 
 
 * How far these grow up in the lifetime of the individual, and 
 how far they are a result of imitation, are points still open to dis- 
 pute. The action of the queen bee, in killing off her rivals as soon 
 as she herself emerges from the cell, would almost seem to imply 
 congenital impulse
 
 108 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. IV. 
 
 mination of conduct continues for a long time to be 
 paramount. The words $#09, mores, Sitten, all bear 
 evidence to the importance of custom in the rrrmation 
 of the morality of nations. In English the word 
 manners has become restricted to a much narrower 
 and more insignificant sense ; but even now it is 
 sometimes capable of being used more widely and 
 seriously, as when Wordsworth says, in his sonnet to 
 Milton, 
 
 " And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power." 
 
 At any rate, whatever terms we may use to express 
 the fact, there can be no doubt that customary mo- 
 rality precedes that which is based on law or on 
 reflection. 
 
 5. THE GUIDANCE OF CONDUCT BY LAW. Gradually, 
 however, in the life of a people, definite rules of 
 action begin to be established. To some extent these 
 are simply customary observances made more 
 definite ; but generally in the formulation of positive 
 laws a certain change gets introduced into the 
 previous customs. When, for instance, definite laws 
 with reference to criminal actions take the place of 
 the primitive custom of revenge, the extent of the 
 retaliation is a good deal limited, and a more definite 
 conception of justice is introduced. 
 
 6. THE GUIDANCE OF CONDUCT BY IDEAS. When 
 definite laws have been formulated, reflection soon 
 begins. Rules almost inevitably conflict both with 
 custom and with one another ; and in any case they 
 fcre found too rigid for the guidance of conduct. Ex- 
 ceptional circumstances arise, and men are led to 
 reflect on the principles that underlie the rules, in order
 
 7>] THE EVOLUTION OF CONDUCT. 
 
 to see how they ought to be modified under the stress 
 of special difficulties. Such reflection leads to a gradual 
 supersession of the letter of the law in favour of its 
 underlying spirit. Men learn to guide themselves by 
 principle instead of by rule, i. e. by consideration of the 
 most important aims that they have in view, and the 
 means that are best adapted to their realisation. When 
 this stage is reached, we have passed almost entirely 
 beyond the region of suggestion and imitation. Re- 
 flective morality is substituted for customary obser- 
 vance. 
 
 7. ACTION AND REFLECTION. Of course the part 
 played by reflection even in the most fully developed 
 forms of morality ought not to be exaggerated. The 
 moral life, even in its most developed stages, is not 
 passed entirely in cool reflective hours ; and even if 
 it were, the complexity of the material would prevent 
 its complete saturation by reflective principles. Swift 
 decisions have to be made and far-reaching plans 
 formed ; so that in the actual activities of the concrete 
 moral life even the most thoughtful of men live to a 
 considerable extent by faith, and do not guide them- 
 selves entirely by well developed principles. The 
 ideas by which they are guided are partly formed by 
 reflection, but partly also they are derived from the 
 experience of the individual and partly from the experi- 
 ence of the race. Even here, then, imitation and sug- 
 gestion are not entirely excluded. There is something 
 of the nature of instinct and impulse even in our most 
 developed conduct. 
 
 8. MORAL IDEAS AND IDEAS ABOUT MORALITY. This 
 leads us to notice an important distinction, on which 
 a good deal of emphasis has been laid in recent times
 
 HO ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. IV. 
 
 viz. the distinction which has been well expressed by 
 Dr. Bosanquet 1 as that between "Moral Ideas" and 
 "Ideas about Morality," or, as it might be put more 
 briefly, between Moral Ideas and Ethical Ideas. The 
 ideas by which we are guided in our actions may be of 
 a more or less reflective character. A man may guide 
 himself by the conception of a clearly-defined end, such 
 as the attainment of happiness or perfection, and may 
 adapt his whole line of conduct to the attainment of this. 
 In such a case he is guided by an Ethical Idea or by an 
 " Idea about Morality," /. e. by an idea formed through 
 reflection upon the nature of the moral end. But a, 
 Moral Idea need not be of this character. A moral 
 idea may be got, as it is sometimes put, out of our 
 "spiritual atmosphere." The idea, for instance, oi 
 the kind of conduct which fits a "gentleman" or a 
 " Christian " is not, as a rule, derived from any definite 
 reflection on the nature of the moral end, but is rathei 
 acquired through tradition and experience. It is im- 
 portant, then, to remember that a man may be guided 
 by moral ideas though he has never definitely reflected 
 upon the nature of morality. It may be added that a 
 man may have reflected much, and even deeply, upon 
 the nature of morality ; and yet his stock of moral 
 ideas may be but small and inefficient. It is no doubt 
 possible to make too much of this distinction ; and 
 perhaps Dr. Bosanquet, who is chiefly responsible for 
 the clear statement of it, has somewhat exaggerated the 
 antithesis. Every moral idea is capable of reflective 
 analysis, and may thus be said to imply an ethical 
 
 i In an article in The International Journal of Ethics, VoL I., no. I. 
 It has since been reprinted in The Civilization of Christendom, pp
 
 9-] THE EVOLUTION OF CONDUCT. Ill 
 
 idea, and, similarly, every ethical idea naturally 
 becomes a source of moral ideas. 1 This is a point, 
 however, on which we shall have occasion to touch 
 more fully when we come to deal with the bearing of 
 ethical theory on practical conduct. In the meantime 
 it may be sufficient to- bear in mind this important dis- 
 tinction between moral and ethical ideas. 
 
 9. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MORAL CONSCIOUSNESS. 
 From this brief sketch some general notion may be 
 formed of the way in which the moral life develops 
 from customary action, founded on suggestion and 
 imitation, to the stage of independent reflective choice. 
 In order, however, to have a complete view of the 
 growth of the moral consciousness, it is necessary to 
 take account not only of the way in which conduct is 
 developed, but also of the parallel development of the 
 judgment that is passed upon conduct. From the 
 earliest dawn of what can be described as morality, 
 men not only act in particular ways, but also in various 
 ways indicate their opinion that particular kinds of 
 action are right and others wrong. The two lines of 
 development are closely connected, but they are also 
 quite distinct ; for it is often but too apparent that men 
 
 1 It would be interesting to inquire how far the moral ideas of the 
 modern Christian world are a result of unconscious growth, and 
 how far they are due to the reflective analysis of Greek thought to 
 the influence of Plato and Aristotle, the Stoics, &c. Or, again, we 
 might ask how far our modern ideas about duties towards animals 
 can be traced to the influence of Utilitarianism, and how far they 
 are due to a more spontaneous development of moral sentiment 
 But such questions would be very difficult to answer. "The wind 
 bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but 
 canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth." This is on 
 th* whole still true of a great part of our moral development
 
 112 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. IV. 
 
 do not act in the way that they judge to be right, or 
 avoid acting in the way that they judge to be wrong. 
 Accordingly, it is now necessary that we should take 
 account of the other line of development the growth 
 of the moral judgment
 
 THE EVOLUTION OF CONDUCT. 
 
 NOTE ON SOCIOLOGY. 
 
 The further discussion of the points dealt with in this chapter, 
 and to some extent also of those dealt with in the following chaptcc, 
 seems to belong most properly to Sociology. But this science is in 
 a very undeveloped state. The beginnings of it are seen in the 
 Politics of Aristotle. In more modern times it owes much to Hobbes, 
 Spinoza, Locke, Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Rousseau, Montesquieu, 
 SL Simon, Adam Smith, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, and several others. 
 But the definite foundation of it must, on the whole, be ascribed to 
 Comte. In this country it was brought into prominence by Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer's interesting little book on The Study of Sociology. 
 The Principles of Sociology, by the same author, have just been com- 
 pleted, and constitute the most elaborate contribution to the sub- 
 ject in this country. In French, reference may be made to such 
 works as De Greef's Introduction h la sociotogie, Tarde's Les lots de 
 f imitation, the writings of Fouill6e and Guyau, and many others. 
 In German, the most elaborate contribution is Schiffle's Bau 
 und Leben des socialen Kb'rpcrs. The works of Simmel (Uebef 
 sociale Dijfferenzierung and Einleitung in die Moralwissenschafl) have 
 a special interest from the intimate way in which he seeks to con- 
 nect Sociology with Ethics. He practically regards Ethics as a de- 
 partment of Sociology. Some account and criticism of his views 
 will be found in Bougie's recent work on Les sciences societies en 
 Alleinagne. See also Mind, New Series, VoL I., no. 4, and Vol. III., 
 no. 2. Several American writers have also dealt with Sociology, 
 notably Mr. Lester F. Ward. Profs. Small and Vincent have written 
 An Introduction to the Study of Society, and, more recently, two in- 
 teresting handbooks have been written by Profs. Giddings and 
 Fairbanks. There is also an American Journal of Sociology, pub- 
 lished at Chicago. It thus seems clear that some beginning has 
 been made in the study of the science. But it can hardly be said as 
 yet that it has any recognized principles or method The student 
 who desires to gain some idea of its present position will probably 
 find The Principles of Sociology by Prof. Giddings or An Introduction 
 to Sociology by ProL Fairbanks most helpful Both contain good 
 Bibliographies. The recent article by Dr. Bosanquet on Philosophy 
 and Sociology (Mind, January, 1897) will also be found exceedingly 
 instructive. 
 E*.
 
 H4 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. v. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 THE GROWTH OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 
 
 1. THE EARLIEST FORMS OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 
 The germs of moral judgment, like the germs of con- 
 duct, may be found even among the lower animals. 
 Domesticated animals, especially dogs, seem often to 
 have a consciousness of having done wrong ; at least 
 they seem to be aware when they have rendered them- 
 selves liable to punishment. And even wild animals, 
 of the more gregarious species, seem to exhibit certain 
 rude beginnings of moral judgment. They seem at 
 least to exhibit a certain discomfort at the violation of 
 a general and settled habit of action, and even in some 
 cases, if all tales are true, to inflict punishment on those 
 members of the herd that violate its traditions. But 
 the severest punishments appear to be inflicted on 
 those whose only crime is that of being diseased or 
 wounded ; so that their action may perhaps be inter- 
 preted, if it is to liave a quasi-moral interpretation at 
 all, ' as an instinctive defence of the herd against any- 
 thing that would tend to weaken it, rather than any- 
 thing of the nature of a distinctly moral judgment. But 
 
 1 The probability is rather, as Mr. Stout suggests, that " the distress 
 of the comrade, and especially the smell of blood, rouses blind fury, 
 which tends to find a definite channel, and thus vents itself on the 
 object which is the centre of attention, i. e., the distressed comrade 
 Itself. If an enemy is at hand, he will suffer."
 
 2.] THE GROWTH OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 11$ 
 
 among primitive races of mankind also the judgment 
 passed on conduct, and expressing itself in reward and 
 punishment, seems to mean little more than approbation 
 of that which strengthens and disapproval of that which 
 weakens the tribe. 1 The important point to notice, 
 however, is that the earliest forms of moral judgment 
 involve reference to a tribe or form of society of which 
 the individual is but a member. The germ of this is 
 no doubt found in the gregarious consciousness of 
 animals. 
 
 2. THE TRIBAL SELF. This point was brought out 
 in an interesting way by Clifford in his account a of what 
 he described as "The Tribal Self." Clifford begins by 
 saying that the Self means essentially ' ' a sort of centre 
 about which our remoter motives revolve, and to which 
 they always have regard." It is, in short, a universe 
 of reference. "If we consider now," he goes on, "the 
 
 1 Something of the same sort may be observed even in more 
 developed communities under certain conditions. Thus, in Bryce's 
 American Commonwealth (chap. Ixiii.), the following remarks are 
 made on some aspects of American political life : " Even city poli- 
 ticians must have a moral code and a moral standard. It is not the 
 code of an ordinary unprofessional citizen. It does not forbid false- 
 hood, or malversation, or ballot stuffing, or 'repeating. 1 But it 
 denounces apathy or cowardice, disobedience, and, above all, treason 
 to the party. Its typical virtue is ' solidity,' unity of heart, mind, 
 and effort among the workers, unquestioning loyalty to the party 
 ticket He who takes his own course is a kicker or bolter ; and is 
 punished not only sternly but vindictively." Nor is this kind of 
 moral standard wholly unknown in English party politics, or in the 
 medical profession, or in the working of Trades Unions. But such 
 a moral standard in modern times, being as it were a standard within 
 a standard, is not able wholly to maintain itself against the recog- 
 nized moral standard of the people. Even the professional politician 
 sometimes finds it necessary " to pander a little to the moral sens* 
 of the community," (Bryce op. cit., chap. Ixviii.). 
 
 * Lectures and Essays (" On the Scientific Basis of Morals ").
 
 n6 ETHICS. [BK. L, CH. v. 
 
 simpler races of mankind, we shall find not only that 
 immediate desires play a far larger part in their lives, 
 and so that the conception of self is less used and less 
 developed, but also that it is less definite and more 
 wide. The savage is not only hurt when anybody 
 treads on his foot, but when anybody treads on his 
 tribe. He may lose his hut, and his wife, and his op- 
 portunities of getting food. In this way, the tribe be- 
 comes naturally included in that conception of self 
 which renders remote desires possible by making them 
 immediate." "The tribe, qud tribe, has to exist, and 
 it can only exist by aid of such an organic artifice as 
 the conception of the tribal self in the minds of its 
 members. Hence the natural selection of those races 
 in which this conception is the most powerful and 
 most habitually predominant as a motive over imme- 
 diate desires. To such an extent has this proceeded 
 that we may fairly doubt whether the selfhood of the 
 tribe is not earlier in point of development than that of 
 the individual. In the process of time it becomes a 
 matter of hereditary transmission, and is thus fixed as 
 a specific character in the constitution of social man. 
 With the settlement of countries, and the aggregation 
 of tribes into nations, it takes a wider and more ab- 
 stract form ; and in the highest natures the tribal self is 
 incarnate in nothing less than humanity. Short of 
 these heights, it places itself in the family and in the 
 city. I shall call that quality or disposition of man 
 which consists in the supremacy of the family or tribal 
 self as a mark of reference for motives by its old name 
 Piety:' 
 
 Without absolutely subscribing to everything that is 
 Stated by Clifford in this connexion, w may at leaat
 
 3-] THE GROWTH OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 1 1/ 
 
 recognise the importance of the point that he here 
 seeks to emphasise viz. the solidarity of the primitive 
 moral consciousness. Man does not at first naturally 
 think of himself as an independent individual, but 
 rather as a part of a system * ; and this system may in 
 a very real sense be called a "self," since it is the uni- 
 verse to which the individual refers the conduct of his 
 life. It is here, then, that we find the earliest basis for 
 the moral judgment ; and, in stating the manner of its 
 formation, it may still be convenient to follow the mode 
 of statement given by Clifford. 
 
 3. THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIENCE. "We do not like 
 a man," Clifford goes on, "whose character is such 
 that we may reasonably expect injuries from him. 
 This dislike of a man on account of his character is a 
 more complex feeling than the mere dislike of separate 
 injuries. A cat likes your hand, and your lap, and the 
 food you give her ; but I do not think she has any 
 conception of you. A dog, however, may like you 
 even when you thrash him, though he does not like 
 the thrashing. Now such likes and dislikes may be 
 felt by the tribal self. If a man does anything gener- 
 ally regarded as good for the tribe, my tribal self may 
 say, in the first place, I like that thing that you have 
 done. By such common approbation of individual 
 acts, the influence of piety as a motive becomes de- 
 fined ; and natural selection will in the long run pre- 
 serve those tribes which have approved the right 
 things ; namely, those things which at that time gave 
 the tribe an advantage in the struggle for existence. 
 
 * It may be noted that the idea of tribal unity generally embodies 
 itself in the image of a tribal god ; and the religious bond tends to 
 become more and more important in giving unity to the system.
 
 ii8 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. v. 
 
 But in the second place, a man may as a rule and con- 
 stantly, being actuated by piety, do good things for 
 the tribe ; and in that case the tribal self will say, I 
 like you. The feeling expressed by this statement on 
 the part of any individual, ' In the name of the tribe, 
 I like you,' is what I call approbation. It is the feeling 
 produced in pious individuals by that sort of char- 
 acter which seems to them beneficial to the com- 
 munity." 
 
 "Now suppose," Clifford proceeds, " that a man has 
 done something obviously harmful to the community. 
 Either some immediate desire, or his individual self, 
 has for once proved stronger than the tribal self. 
 When the tribal self wakes up, the man says, ' In the 
 name of the tribe, I do not like this thing that I, as an 
 individual, have done.' This self-judgment in the name 
 of the tribe is called Conscience. If the man goes 
 further, and draws from this act and others an infer- 
 ence about his own character, he may say, ' In the 
 name of the tribe I do not like my individual self.' 
 This is remorse. " 
 
 All this ought to present no difficulty to the student 
 who has grasped the conception of the different Uni- 
 verses within which we live. The Universe, from the 
 point of view of which the primitive moral judgment 
 is passed, is that described by Clifford as "the tribal 
 self." From this point of view the consciousness of 
 the primitive savage passes judgment both on himself 
 and others as individuals within the tribe. And on the 
 whole, actions are judged to be good or bad, and indi- 
 viduals to be praiseworthy or blameworthy, according 
 as they tend to promote or to impede the existence 
 and the welfare of the tribe.
 
 4-] THE GROWTH OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 119 
 
 4. CUSTOM AS THE MORAL STANDARD. We must not, 
 however, suppose that the procedure of the primitive 
 man is quite so self-conscious as Clifford's manner of 
 statement might seem to imply. He does not deliberately 
 ask himself whether his conduct is or is not of such a 
 kind as to promote the welfare of his tribe. Still less 
 does he ask such a question with respect to his general 
 character or to that of others. What happens is rather, 
 as we have already indicated, that customary modes 
 of action grow up in the life of a people, that those 
 modes of action that are favourable to its welfare tend 
 on the whole to be selected and preserved, and that 
 those modes of action also tend on the whole to be ap- 
 proved. In thus approving, the individual puts him- 
 self at the point of view of his tribe, but he does so 
 unconsciously ; it does not occur to him that it would 
 be possible for him to take up any other point of view. 
 Of himself as an independent individual, or of others 
 as independent individuals, he has not yet formed any 
 clear conception. Hence also it is not quite true to say 
 that he passes judgment on his own character or on that 
 of others. He hardly thinks of character. He judges 
 actions. Even in such a comparatively advanced stage 
 of the moral consciousness as that represented in 
 Homer, the idea of a general judgment on character 
 has scarcely emerged. In the Iliad, as Seeley has re- 
 marked, 1 "the distinction between right and wrong 
 is barely recognised, and the division of mankind into 
 the good and the bad is not recognised at all. It has 
 often been remarked that it contains no villain. The 
 reason of this is not that the poet does not represent his 
 characters as doing wicked deeds, for, in fact, there is 
 
 1 Ecu Homo, chap. ziz.
 
 130 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. V. 
 
 not one among them who is not capable of deeds th 
 most atrocious and shameful. But the poet does not 
 regard these deeds with any strong disapprobation, and 
 the feeling of moral indignation which has been so 
 strong in later poets was in him so feeble that he is 
 quite incapable of hating any of his characters for their 
 crimes. He can no more conceive the notion of a 
 villain than of an habitually virtuous man. The few 
 deeds that he recognises as wrong, or at least as strange 
 and dangerous killing a suppliant, or killing a father- 
 he, notwithstanding, conceives all persons alike as ca- 
 pable of perpetrating under the influence of passion or 
 some heaven-sent bewilderment of the understanding." 
 In such a state of society there are things which "one 
 does not do," actions which are not customary, but 
 there is hardly anything which is regarded with strong 
 moral disapprobation. 
 
 5. POSITIVE LAW AS THE MORAL STANDARD. Gradu- 
 ally, however, as we have seen, Law takes the place 
 of custom in the control of conduct. Along with this 
 there comes a certain change in the moral judgment 
 When "thou shalt not do "takes the place of "one 
 does not do," the distinction between right and wrong 
 is made more precise ; and a more definite condemna- 
 tion attaches to the violation of that which is recog- 
 nised as right In the early stage of customary 
 morality, to quote Seeley once more, "men, easily 
 tempted into crime, flung off the effects of it as easily. 
 Agamemnon, after violating outrageously the right of 
 property, has but to say daedftyv, ' My mind was be- 
 wildered/ and the excuse is sufficient to appease his 
 own conscience, and is accepted by the public, and 
 ren by the injured party himself, who feels himself 

 
 6.] THE GROWTH OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 121 
 
 equally liable to such temporary mental perplexities. * 
 " After the introduction of law crime could never again 
 be thus lightly expiated and forgotten." " By the law 
 comes the knowledge of sin. A standard of action is 
 set up, which serves to each man both as a rule of life 
 for himself and a rule of criticism upon his neighbours. 
 Then comes the division of mankind into those who 
 habitually conform to this rule and those who violate 
 it, into the good and the bad, and feelings soon spring 
 up to sanction the classification, feelings of respect for 
 the one class and hatred for the other." 
 
 6. THE MORAL LAW. But so long as the law taken 
 as the moral standard is not definitely distinguished 
 from the positive law of the land, the moral judgment 
 is not yet fully formed. The positive law of a country 
 is directed primarily against external acts prejudicial to 
 the welfare of society, whereas the moral judgment in 
 its fully developed form has reference rather to men's in- 
 tentions, motives, and characters, than to their mere 
 external performances. Now in the life of a develop- 
 ing people this distinction gradually emerges. We see 
 it perhaps most clearly in the case of the Jews, when the 
 Ten Commandments become definitely distinguished 
 from the ceremonial and civil laws of the country. 
 These Commandments include the rule, "Thou shall 
 not covet," as well as "Thou shalt not steal," and 
 thus introduce the conception of a judgment to be passed 
 on the inner attitude of mind, as well as on the outer 
 action. As the moral consciousness develops, this con- 
 ception becomes more and more pronounced. 
 
 7. MORAL CONFLICT. When moral development 
 has arrived at such a stage as this, certain conflicts
 
 122 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. V. 
 
 almost inevitably arise, both in action and in the judg- 
 ment that is passed on action. In primitive societies 
 each man's duty is comparatively obvious. There is 
 little division of labour, and the way in which the 
 welfare of the tribe is to be promoted can seldom 
 be doubtful. But when law is added to custom, and 
 moral law added to positive law, and when at the same 
 time a man finds himself occupying many different 
 positions within his society (being, for instance, at once 
 father, soldier, judge, husbandman, and the like), the 
 right thing to do on a given occasion is not always so 
 apparent. Law may conflict with custom, or one law 
 with another. The classical instance of such a con- 
 flict is found in the Antigone of Sophocles, where the 
 definite law of the state comes into collision with the 
 more customary principle of family affection. Anti- 
 gone prefers the latter, because it is of immemorial 
 antiquity and its origin cannot be traced, whereas the 
 law of the state has been made and may be unmade 
 again. But the ultimate result of such a conflict is to 
 give rise to reflection, and to the search for some 
 deeper standard of judgment. 
 
 8. THE INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE AS STANDARD. Such 
 a standard is sometimes sought in an appeal to the 
 heart or conscience of the individual. An appeal may 
 be made from the outer law of the state to the inner 
 voice, or law of the heart. But this is soon found to 
 be unsatisfactory, inasmuch as the conflicts found in 
 the outer law are in reality repeated in the inner law. 
 The heart may attach itself, for instance, to the idea of 
 the family, but it may also attach itself to the idea of 
 the state; and devotion, to the one may be incom-
 
 10.] THE GROWTH OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 123 
 
 patible with devotion to the other. ' We are accord- 
 ingly thrown back upon reflective analysis. 
 
 9. THE GROWTH OF THE REFLECTIVE JUDGMENT. It 
 is thus that men are gradually led to ask themselves 
 what is the real basis of the moral judgment. This 
 question inevitably leads to the attempt to construct 
 some sort of scientific ethical system. It may, how- 
 ever, for a time stop short of this, and merely lead to 
 the formulation of certain fundamental principles, 
 without any definite attempt at systematic construc- 
 tion. In any case universal principle::, applicable to 
 all times and peoples become gradually substituted for 
 the customs and laws of particular tribes and nations. 
 
 10. ILLUSTRATIONS FROM ANCIENT PEOPLES. The de- 
 velopment of the moral judgment is perhaps most 
 
 1 Cf. the attitude of Blanche in Shakespeare's play of King John, 
 lAcL III, scene i) s 
 
 " Which is the side that I must go withal ? 
 I am with both : each army hath a hand ; 
 And in their rage, I having hold of both, 
 They whirl asunder and dismember me. 
 Husband, I cannot pray that thou mayst win ; 
 Uncle, I needs must pray that thou mayst lose ; 
 Father, I may not wish the fortune thine ; 
 Grandam, I will not wish thy wishes thrive ; 
 Whoever wins, on that side shall I lose ; 
 Assured loss before the match be played." 
 
 Here the puzzle is On which side is the self ? On which side is 
 the deepest and most abiding interest ? 
 
 Cf. also the attitude of Desdemona in Othello (Act L, scene 3) * 
 " I do perceive here a divided duty." 
 
 Indeed it is out of such conflict that all the most profoundly tragic 
 situations arise.
 
 124 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. v. 
 
 easily studied in the great nations of antiquity, in 
 which there was less interference from without than in 
 the case of most modern peoples. 
 
 Among the Jews, for instance, it is easy to trace a 
 development from the customary and ceremonial law, 
 through the Ten Commandments, to the deeper and 
 more inward principles represented by the Psalms and 
 the later prophets. The idea of the "pure heart" 
 gradually substitutes itself for external observances ; 
 and, in Christianity, the law is quite definitely super- 
 seded by the idea of the inner principle of love. When 
 this takes place, the purely national character of the 
 Jewish morality is at the same time broken down, and 
 it becomes a morality that is applicable to all times and 
 peoples. In the case of this line of development, how- 
 ever, it is to be noted that every step takes place, as 
 it were, by a new enactment. The deeper principle is 
 always formulated by the voice of some prophet, speak- 
 ing more or less definitely in the name of "the Lord." 
 The idea of a divine law remains fundamental through- 
 out. Even when the inner principle of Christianity is 
 set against the external rules of the older system, it still 
 appears in the form of a definite enactment, a ' New 
 Commandment.' " It was said by them of old time. 
 
 .... But I say unto you " The appeal is 
 
 still to an authoritative law. 
 
 Among the Greeks the case is very different. Here, 
 indeed, we start also from the idea of law, and indeed 
 of divine law. But it is a law that is never distinctly 
 formulated in a code of commandments ; and the 
 process of its development is different. The deeper 
 principle is not introduced in the form of a new pro- 
 phetic utterance, but in the form of a reflective inter-
 
 10.] THE GROWTH OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 12$ 
 
 pretation. Men begin to question the validity of the 
 old principles of action, and to ask themselves how 
 they are to be justified; and this soon gives rise to 
 reflective systems of Ethics. The growth of these will 
 be briefly noticed in the following Book. What it is 
 important to observe, however, is that, different as this 
 course of development is from that found among the 
 Hebrews, it leads, nevertheless, to substantially similar 
 results. Here also the growth is one from external ob- 
 servances to the idea of action based on principle from 
 the idea of duty done in obedience to the law of the state 
 to that of duty done TOO xaXoo gvexa, for the sake of the 
 beauty or nobility of it. At the same time there is a 
 gradual advance from the idea of a kind of life which is 
 possible only for the Greek, and not for the Barbarian, 
 to the idea (which becomes especially prominent among 
 the Stoics) of a kind of life which is simply human, and 
 which belongs to all mankind as citizens of the world. 
 
 Among the Romans nothing quite similar can be 
 traced. In their later life they were too much influenced 
 by Greek thought for anything quite spontaneous to 
 arise among themselves. But we see something of 
 the same sort in the development of their law. Roman 
 law is at first simply Roman, and rests on no definite 
 principle. By the help of the stoical philosophy, how- 
 ever, they gradually introduced an inner principle into 
 it, and in so doing made it cease to be Roman Law, 
 and become the Law of the world. 
 
 Thus, these three peoples gradually developed from 
 their national institutions a universal religion, a uni- 
 versal science, and a universal law, at the same time 
 as they substituted an inner principle of action for a 
 merely external obedience to their laws.
 
 126 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. v. 
 
 11. GENERAL NATURE OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT. From 
 this brief sketch the general nature of the development 
 of the moral judgment may be more or less apparent 
 The following features may be specially noted : 
 
 (1) It develops from customs, through law, to reflec- 
 tive principles. 
 
 (2) It develops from the judgment on external acts 
 to the judgment on the inner purpose and character. 
 
 (3) It develops from ideas peculiar to the circum- 
 stances of particular tribes and nations to ideas that 
 have a universal validity. 
 
 Having thus indicated the general nature of the de- 
 velopment of the moral judgment, we may now be in 
 a position to consider the essential elements involved 
 in that judgment in its fully developed form.
 
 I.] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. I2/ 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 
 
 1. THE NATURE OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. From the 
 statements that have now been made, the general na- 
 ture of the moral judgment ought to be to a consider- 
 able extent apparent; but there are still some questions 
 that it is important to ask with respect to its fully 
 developed content and significance. These questions 
 will naturally fall under two distinct heads. It is evi- 
 dent, in the first place, that the moral judgment is not 
 simply of the nature of what is called a judgment in 
 Logic. It is not merely a judgment about, but a judg- 
 ment upon. It does not merely state the nature of 
 some object, but compares it with a standard, and by 
 means of this standard pronounces it to be good or evil, 
 right or wrong. This is what is meant in saying that 
 the moral point of view is normative. Now it follows 
 from this that there are two main questions to be asked 
 (i) What is the object upon which judgment is pro- 
 nounced ? (2) What is the point of view from which 
 such a judgment is possible? The consideration of 
 these questions will naturally lead us up to the consid- 
 eration of the precise nature of the standard, which is 
 to be the subject of the following book. 
 
 The two questions which we have now to consider 
 may be briefly expressed as follows : (i) What is the 
 object of the moral judgment ? (2) What is the subject 
 of the moral judgment ?
 
 1 23 ETHICS. [_ BK - ! CH - VI. 
 
 2. THE OBJECT OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. In a general 
 way the nature of the object upon which the moral 
 judgment is passed is clear enough. The object is 
 voluntary action. It is with this, as we have seen, 
 that Ethics is concerned throughout. It has to do with 
 the right direction of the will. The moral judgments 
 which we pass are, in like manner, concerned with the 
 will. Whatever is not willed, has no moral quality. 
 An avalanche rolling down a mountain may devastate 
 a village ; a shower may save a nation from famine : 
 but we do not judge either the one or the other to be 
 morally bad or good. In like manner, we do not pass 
 moral judgments on tigers or horses for their ravages 
 or for their services, so long as we regard these as 
 dictated by mere instinct, without volition. When we 
 praise or blame them, we do it under the tacit assump- 
 tion that their acts were voluntary. Moral judgments, 
 then, are not passed upon all sorts of things, nor even 
 upon all sorts of activities, but only upon conduct. 
 
 3. THE GOOD WILL. We are thus led to the famous 
 declaration with which Kant opened his great treatise 
 on Ethics. 1 He begins it by saying that "there is 
 nothing in the world, or even out of it, that can be 
 called good without qualification, except a good will." 
 The gifts of fortune, he said, and the happiness which 
 they bring with them, are to be regarded as good only 
 on condition that they are rightly used. Talents and 
 worldly wisdom are, in like manner, good only when 
 they are subordinated to the attainment of high aims. 
 These things are only conditionally good. But a good 
 will is good without condition. It is, as Kant said, the 
 only jewel that shines by its own light 
 1 Metaphysic of Morals, section L
 
 3-] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 129 
 
 But in thus commending the good will as supremely 
 good, and regarding it as the ultimate object approved 
 by the moral judgment, we must be careful to distin- 
 guish will from mere wish. "Hell," it is said, "i 
 paved with good intentions." A good will is not 
 merely a good intention, in the sense in which we dis- 
 tinguish an intention from a fully formed purpose, ' but 
 a determined effort to produce a good result though it 
 may be an effort that has still to wait for its appro- 
 priate opportunity of issuing in overt action. Such an 
 effort is, from a moral point of view, supremely good, 
 even if, from some unforeseen contingencies, the good 
 result is not itself achieved. A good wish is merely 
 the consciousness that the attainment of a certain end 
 would give satisfaction : a good will is the identifica- 
 tion of oneself with that end. 
 
 But again, when we say that a good will is supremely 
 good, even if it fails to achieve a good result, it ought 
 not to be supposed that a good will can actually fail to 
 issue in a good action if, at least, it issues in action at 
 all. a Will and act, when there is an act at all, are but the 
 inner and outer side of the same phenomenon. A good 
 will issues in a good action ; and, conversely, there can 
 be no good action without a good will. But an action 
 which in itself is good may lead, through the interfer- 
 ence of other circumstances, to a bad result ; and a bad 
 action may lead to a good result "The morality of 
 an action," said Dr. Johnson, 1 "depends on the motive 
 
 1 7. e., the sense in which we distinguish Wish from Will Th 
 term " Intention " is here used in a sense somewhat different from 
 that explained in Chapter L of the present Book. 
 
 * Cf. above, Book I., chap. L, 591 
 
 Bos well's Life of Johnson, VoL '. 
 
 fitb. f
 
 130 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. vi. 
 
 from which we act. If I fling half-a-crown to a beggar 
 with intention to break his head, and he picks it up and 
 buys victuals with it, the physical effect is good, but, 
 with respect to me, the action is very wrong." On the 
 other hand, an act in itself good may be perverted to 
 evil ends. " You taught me language," says Caliban 
 to Prospero, "and my profit on't is, I know how to 
 curse." He who benefits another may be only nour- 
 ishing a snake. What constitutes the goodness of an 
 action is the goodness of the intention ; but a good 
 intention, though it produces a good action, need not 
 produce a good result. A result is generally a resultant 
 of several causes, of which the will of any particular 
 agent is only one. 1 
 
 4. JUDGMENT ON ACT AND ON AGENT. So far there is 
 no difficulty. But it is necessary now to draw a dis- 
 tinction between two forms in which the moral judg- 
 ment is passed. We may judge a man's actions, or we 
 may judge the man himself. It can hardly be doubted 
 that both these forms of judgment are to be found even 
 at the most developed stage of the moral consciousness 
 that has yet been reached. The distinction corresponds, 
 in the main, to that between Right and Good. Some 
 of a man's actions may be right, and yet we may not 
 
 1 If we took account of all the effects, direct and indirect, of a 
 man's actions, we should probably find that the amount of good in 
 the result is much more nearly in proportion to the amount of good 
 in the intention than is commonly supposed. Green says (Prolego- 
 mena to Ethics, p. 320), that " there is no real reason to doubt that 
 the good or evil in the motive of an action Is exactly measured by 
 the good or evil in its consequences." It should be noted that, in 
 what is said up to this point, no account is taken of the question, 
 afterwards discussed, whether it is strictly on the intention or on the 
 motive that the moral judgment is passed,
 
 5-] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 13! 
 
 judge him to be a good man, and vice versa. We some- 
 times, that is to say, judge character, and sometimes 
 will in the narrower sense. Now, with respect to the 
 judgment on character no particular difficulty seems to 
 arise. We judge men's characters by the degree in which 
 the total content of their moral consciousness tends 
 towards the realisation of the highest end, whatever 
 that may be conceived to be. It is not so easy, how- 
 ever, to say what it is that we judge when we judge an 
 act rather than an agent. We do not judge the act by 
 its result, but by the purpose of the agent. On this all 
 are agreed. But it remains to be asked whether we 
 judge it by the whole intention involved in it, or rather 
 by that part of the intention which is described as the 
 motive. On this point there is considerable difference 
 of opinion, and the question is further complicated by 
 a want of uniformity in the interpretation of the terms 
 Intention and Motive. 
 
 5. Is THE MORAL JUDGMENT CONCERNED WITH MOTIVES 
 OR WITH INTENTIONS ? The controversy on this subject * 
 has been carried on chiefly between writers of the in- 
 tuitional and the utilitarian school.* The former have 
 generally maintained that the moral judgment is con- 
 cerned entirely with the motives of our actions, that 
 our actions are to be pronounced good or bad in pro- 
 portion to the goodness or badness of the motives by 
 which we are actuated in doing them. Thus Dr. Mar- 
 tineau, the most eminent of recent intuitionist writers, 
 
 1 This subject is well treated by Prof. Dewey in his Outlines of 
 Ethics, pp. 4-6, and more fully in Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, pp. 
 57-62. 
 
 * The nature of these two schools will become apparent in the 
 equeL
 
 132 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. vi. 
 
 has drawn out an elaborate table of the motives of our 
 conduct, and arranged them in order of merit 1 He 
 places reverence at the top, and censoriousness, vin- 
 dictiveness, and suspiciousness at the bottom, while 
 between these lie a great variety of passions, appetites, 
 affections, sentiments, etc. ; such as love of ease, fear, 
 ambition, generosity, and compassion. Now to dis- 
 cuss the merits of such a scheme as this would evi- 
 dently carry us beyond the limits of such a handbook 
 as the present Two criticisms, however, may be 
 passed upon it In the first place, the list of motives, 
 or "springs of action " (as they are also called), seems 
 to rest on a false conception of psychological divisions. 
 The student of psychology will probably have become 
 familiar with this objection. Modern Psychology 
 treats the human mind as an organic unity, and repu- 
 diates any hard and fast distinctions of faculties, such 
 as seem to be implied in Dr. Martineau's list The 
 motives which he enumerates are not simple, but 
 highly complex, phenomena ; and their merits in any 
 particular case would depend on the way in which 
 they are composed. Fear, for instance, is not a simple 
 element in consciousness, but a complex state ; and 
 its merit or demerit depends on the way in which we 
 fear and the thing of which we are afraid. The same 
 applies to ambition, and to most of the other motives 
 enumerated by Dr. Martineau. But, apart from this, 
 the list seems to involve that confusion between the 
 different senses of the term " motive " to which refer- 
 
 1 Types of Ethical Theory, Part II., Book I., chap, vu A criticism 
 of Martineau's doctrine will be found in Sidgwick's Methods ofEthic* 
 Book III., chap, xii
 
 5-] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 133 
 
 ence has already been made. Thus fear and compas- 
 sion, though referring to objects, may be treated as 
 emotional states ; whereas ambition does not denote a 
 state of feeling, but rather an object aimed at not in- 
 deed a definite object, but a range of objects almost 
 infinite in variety (from the desire to be Mayor of a 
 town to the desire to be the saviour of one's country), 
 having only in common the desire of some form of 
 personal eminence. Now mere feelings in the mind, 
 such as fear and compassion, do not seem, as I have 
 already indicated, to constitute motives at all, in the 
 proper sense of the term : they are not inducements 
 to action. What induces us to act is the presentation 
 of some end to be attained. Consequently, if we are 
 to have a list of motives, this list should take the form 
 rather of a classification of ends to be attained, than 
 of feelings that exist in our minds. Further, these ends 
 would have to be arranged, not under any such ab- 
 stract headings as " ambition " and the like, but in 
 accordance with their actual, concrete nature. 
 
 The antagonism of the utilitarians seems to be partly 
 due to the inadequacy of the intuitionist theory. Thus 
 Mill urges x that "the morality of an action depends 
 entirely upon the intention that is, upon what the 
 agent wills to do. But the motive, that is, the feeling 
 which makes him will so to do, when it makes no 
 difference in the act, makes none in the morality : 
 though it makes a great difference in our moral esti- 
 mation of the agent, especially if it indicates a good 
 or a bad habitual disposition." "The motive of an 
 action," he says again,* "has nothing to do with tha 
 
 i Utilitarianism, chap, ii, p. 27, note. * Ibid., p. 2&
 
 134 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. vi. 
 
 morality of the action, though much with the worth of 
 the agent." The reasonableness of this view is ap- 
 parent. If one man is animated by compassion and 
 another by fear, we may think the former a more 
 amiable man and the latter a more cowardly man : 
 but if they are led to act in precisely the same way, 
 must not their actions be regarded as equally good or 
 bad ? They are not perhaps equally good men ; but 
 that is not the question. A good man may do a bad 
 action, and a bad man may do a good action. The 
 question is simply Are their actions good or bad? 
 How they feel in doing the actions may affect our 
 judgment of their characters, of their lives as a whole, 
 but not of their particular actions. Of course if their 
 actions are different in consequence of their feelings 
 if, for instance, the man who feels compassion does 
 the act in a more gracious way, and the man who feels 
 fear does it in a hurried and awkward way our moral 
 judgment upon the actions will be different. But the 
 reason is that in this case the feeling has to some ex- 
 tent affected the nature of the act that is willed. This 
 is Mill's view ; and it is evidently a reasonable view, 
 so far as it goes. Nevertheless, it appears to me to be 
 erroneous. 
 
 6. THE MORAL JUDGMENT is PARTLY CONCERNED WITH 
 MOTIVES. So long indeed as the reference is merely to 
 the feelings by which our actions are accompanied, 
 there is no need to dispute Mill's position. ' But if we 
 understand the motive to mean that which induces us 
 
 1 Of course the nature of our feelings is ultimately determined by 
 the nature of the ends that we have in view, and consequently in 
 disputing the one position we are in reality disputing the other aa 
 well
 
 6.] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 135 
 
 to act in a particular way ; then I think we must main- 
 tain that it is on the motive that the moral judgment 
 is passed, or at least that the motive is properly taken 
 into account in passing judgment. Mill's error seems 
 to arise from this, that he supposes the moral judgment 
 to be passed on things done, whereas the moral judg- 
 ment is not properly passed upon a thing done, but 
 upon a person doing. If it were not so, we should 
 pass moral judgment on the instinctive acts of animals, 
 and even on the movements of rocks, clouds, and 
 avalanches. What we judge is conduct ; and this 
 means not merely an overt act, but the attitude of a 
 person in acting ; and his attitude must include his 
 motive. Now Mill himself admits that the motive 
 (even in the sense of the mere feeling, and surely ' 
 much more in the sense of the end with reference to 
 which we are induced to act) makes a difference in 
 our estimation of the agent. It is true, indeed, that in 
 passing a moral judgment upon a particular act we 
 need not take account of the whole character of the 
 man who does it. If a man gets drunk, or tells a lie, 
 or defrauds his neighbour, we can say that he has done 
 wrong, without needing to inquire whether he is in 
 other respects a good man or a bad. But this does 
 not imply that we judge his action simply from the 
 outside, as a thing done. It is the man doing it that 
 we judge ; and the question, what induced him to do 
 it, is not irrelevant to this judgment. It may be ad- 
 mitted that we frequently omit this inner side of a 
 man's conduct in forming our judgments. But the 
 reason is, that it is so difficult to ascertain what the 
 inner side is. With regard to all men's actions (except 
 our own),
 
 1 3$ 1THICS. [BK. I., CH. VL 
 
 One point most still be greatly dark, 
 The moving why they do if 
 
 Hence the force of the precept "judge not 1 " But in 
 so far as we do judge, when we try to be thoroughly 
 just in our moral appreciations, it seems unquestion- 
 able that we take account of the motive, and that this 
 is what we are bound to take account of. * 
 
 It may be objected, of course, that a man's motives 
 are sometimes excellent, while yet we feel bound to 
 condemn his actions. Some fanatics, for instance, 
 have performed acts of the utmost atrocity, "thinking 
 that they did God service." Are we to approve these 
 actions, it may be asked, because the end aimed at 
 was good ? In answering this question, we must be 
 sure that we understand exactly what the question is. 
 Are we to understand that we are asked, whether, in 
 the case of such actions, we regard the thing done as 
 
 1 An example may help to make this clear. It has been urged 
 that if it is just to put a man to death, this act will not be rendered 
 vicious by the mere fact that the execution of it is accompanied by a 
 feeling of resentment or malevolence. Certainly, I should answer, 
 the mere feeling of resentment will make no difference in the 
 morality of the action, any more than a feeling of reluctance or a 
 feeling of weariness. But it is otherwise if the gratification of the 
 feeling was the motive of the act If a judge were to condemn a 
 criminal to death, not because it is just, but because he feels resent- 
 ment, and aims at the gratification of this feeling, then undoubtedly 
 his action would be wrong, though the result of it might accidentally 
 be right i. e. it might be the case that the criminal ought to have 
 been put to death. Of course in such a case the intention is wrong 
 aa well as the motive. This is necessarily so ; for the motive is part 
 of the intention. In the case supposed, it is part of the judge's in- 
 tention (his inner intention, as I have called it) to gratify his feeling 
 of resentment But if this had not been part of his motive, it would 
 not have vitiated his action ;'. e. Hit had not been part of his induce-
 
 $ 7-] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 137 
 
 a desirable result ? If so, our answer would no doubt 
 be decidedly, No. In the same way we should say 
 that the fall of an avalanche is not a desirable result 
 But in neither case is our judgment a moral judgment 
 On the other hand, if we are asked whether we con- 
 sider that the fanatics in question acted rightly, then 
 we must answer that, in so far as they were aiming 
 steadfastly at a definite end, and in so far as that end 
 was a good one, we must approve of their actions. As 
 a rule, indeed, we shall not entirely approve of them ; 
 but the reason is that we do not regard their aims as 
 perfectly good. This is implied in calling them fanatics. 
 A fanatic is one who pursues some narrow end as if it 
 were the supreme good. The motive of such a man is 
 not the best possible, and the more conscientiously he 
 is guided by that motive the more certainly will his 
 actions not be the best possible. 
 
 7. BUT THE JUDGMENT is REALLY ON CHARACTER. It 
 appears from this, however, that it is only in a some- 
 what strained sense that the judgment can be said to 
 be passed either on the intention or on the motive 
 alone. The truth seems to be rather that the fully de- 
 veloped moral judgment is always pronounced, directly 
 or indirectly, on the character of the agent. That is to 
 say, as I have already remarked, it is never simply on 
 a thing done, but always on a person doing, that we 
 pass moral judgment. It is true that, in some cases, 
 we may have regard only to the person as doing this one 
 particular action, while in other cases we may think 
 of him as having general habits of action. But in all 
 cases, when we are passing a strictly moral judgment, 
 we think 'of the action, not as an isolated event, but as 
 part of a system of life. We judge its significance not
 
 138 T ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. YI. 
 
 in the abstract, but for the person who does it, situated 
 as he happens to be, and viewing the world as he has 
 learned to view it. Thus we judge the action to be 
 good or evil according to the extent to which the 
 various elements in the whole presented content serve 
 as inducements to act or to refrain from acting. In 
 thus regarding the action, we are judging the whole 
 intention, but with reference to the extent to which the 
 various elements in it serve, or do not serve, as motives 
 to action. We thus judge the motives, both positively 
 and negatively, and in so doing judge the whole inten- 
 tion. Hence it is somewhat misleading to say simply 
 that we pass judgment either on the intention or on 
 the motive. * 
 
 8. THE SUBJECT OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. Having 
 thus considered the precise nature of the object upon 
 which the moral judgment is passed, we must now turn 
 our attention to the subject of the moral judgment, 
 ** e. to the point of view from which an action is judged 
 to be good or bad. In a sense, every man may be 
 said to judge his own action to be good at the moment 
 when he does it. In deliberately choosing to do it, he 
 pronounces it to be the course of action which offers 
 most inducement at the time. By what right, then, 
 we may ask, does any one else pronounce it to be 
 wrong ? Or, how does it happen that the man him- 
 self, on calm reflection, judges his action to fall short 
 of an ideal standard ? The answer is that it is looked 
 
 1 For further discussion on this point, the student may be referred 
 to Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, Book II., chap.-iL, Book III., chap. 
 L, Book IV., chap, i.; Martineau's Types of Ethical Theory, Part IL 
 Book I., chap. vL, 15 ; and International Journal of Ethics, Vol. IV. 
 Nos. i and 2,
 
 9-] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 139 
 
 at from a different point of view, regarded within a 
 different universe or system, from that from which the 
 individual was regarding it when he decided to act in 
 that particular way. But there are an indefinite number 
 of universes within which an action might be placed, 
 an indefinite number of points of view from which an 
 action or an agent might be judged. What claim has 
 any one of these to be regarded as preferable to any 
 other ? 
 
 Now to give any complete answer to this question 
 would involve the discussion of the various theories of 
 morals, to which our attention is to be directed in the 
 next Book. But, without entering into this discussion 
 at present, it may be profitable to notice some ways 
 in which the subject of the moral judgment may be 
 conceived. 
 
 9. THE MORAL CONNOISSEUR. One way in which 
 we may help ourselves to understand it is by calling 
 to our aid the analogy of the judgments which are 
 passed on works of art. We say that a poem or a play 
 or a novel is a good or a bad artistic product. In so 
 saying, we are passing a judgment upon it, just as we 
 do when we say that an action is good or bad. Now 
 from what point of view is such a judgment pro- 
 nounced? Not, it seems clear, from that of the person 
 who happens at the time to be reading or hearing or 
 seeing the artistic product, any more than the moral 
 judgment is passed from the point of view of the 
 individual who is acting. The artist appeals from the 
 judgment of the multitude to the judgment of the 
 skilled and sympathetic critic. l Now it may be said 
 
 1 " Like Verdi when, at his worst opera's end 
 (Th thing they gave at Florence what's its nam ?)
 
 140 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. VL 
 
 that in like manner, when we are dealing with conduct, 
 the appeal is to the judgment of the moral connoisseur. 
 This is the view of the Moral Sense School, to which 
 we shall have occasion to refer in the sequel, and in 
 particular of Shaftesbury, its most notable exponent. 
 Without discussing the point of view of that School at 
 present, it suffices to say here that it hardly seems to 
 furnish us with a satisfactory answer to the present 
 question. A work of art aims, as we have already 
 noted, at the production of a certain result. The skilled 
 critic is the only judge whether such a result has been 
 achieved. "We musicians know." But in morals, as 
 we have seen, it is rather the action than the result 
 that is judged. Now this action, if it is a real action 
 at all, has been already judged by the person who acts. 
 He has deliberately chosen to act in a particular way. 
 Yet his action is judged to be wrong, and judged to be 
 wrong not merely by the moral connoisseur, but by 
 himself when he reflects upon it. 
 
 10. THE IMPARTIAL SPECTATOR. A somewhat more 
 elaborate theory was put forward by Adam Smith. 
 His theory rests upon the fact of sympathy, to which 
 reference has already been made. He points out that 
 our approval or disapproval of the conduct of others 
 depends on the extent to which we are able to sym- 
 pathise with them. "We run," he says, 1 "not only 
 to congratulate the successful, but to condole with th* 
 
 While the mad houseful's plaudits near out-bang 
 His orchestra of salt-box, tongs and bones, 
 He looks through all the roaring and the wreaths 
 Where sits Rossini patient in his stall" 
 
 Browning Bishop Blougram's Apology, 
 * Theory oj the Moral Sentiments, Part I., Sect I., chap. ii.
 
 10.] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 14! 
 
 afflicted ; and the pleasure which we find in the con- 
 versation of one whom in all the passions of his heart 
 we can entirely sympathise with, seems to do more 
 than compensate the painfulness of that sorrow with 
 which the view of his situation affects us." " If we 
 hear a person loudly lamenting his misfortunes, which, 
 however, upon bringing the case home to ourselves, 
 we feel can produce no such violent effect upon us, 
 we are shocked at his grief ; and, because we cannot 
 enter into it, call it pusillanimity and weakness. It 
 gives us the spleen, on the other hand, to see another 
 too happy, or too much elevated, as we call it, with 
 any little piece of good fortune. We are disobliged 
 even with his joy ; and, because we cannot go along 
 with it, call it levity and folly. We are even put out 
 of humour if our companions laugh louder or longer at 
 a joke than we think it deserves ; that is, than we feel 
 that we ourselves could laugh at it." 
 
 "When," he goes on, 1 " the original passions of the 
 person principally concerned are in perfect concord 
 with the sympathetic emotions of the spectator, they 
 necessarily appear to this last just and proper, and 
 suitable to their objects ; and, on the contrary, when, 
 upon bringing the case home to himself, he finds that 
 they do not coincide with what he feels, they neces- 
 sarily appear to him unjust and improper, and unsuit- 
 able to the causes which excite them. To approve of 
 the passions of another, therefore, as suitable to their 
 objects, is the same thing as to observe that we entirely 
 sympathise with them ; and not to approve of them as 
 such, is the same thing as to observe that we do not 
 entirely sympathise with them. The man who resenta 
 
 iii
 
 142 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. vi. 
 
 the injuries that have been done to me, and observes 
 that I resent them precisely as he does, necessarily 
 approves of my resentment. The man whose sym- 
 pathy keeps time to my grief, cannot but admit the 
 reasonableness of my sorrow. He whp admires the 
 same poem, or the same picture, and admires them 
 exactly as I do, must surely allow the justness of my 
 admiration. He who laughs at the same joke, and 
 laughs along with me, cannot well deny the propriety 
 of my laughter. On the contrary, the person who, 
 upon those different occasions, either feels no such 
 emotion as that which I feel, or feels none that bears 
 any proportion to mine, cannot avoid disapproving 
 my sentiments on account of their dissonance with his 
 own. If my animosity goes beyond what the indig- 
 nation of my friend can correspond to ; if my grief 
 exceeds what his most tender compassion can go 
 along with ; if my admiration is either too high or too 
 low to tally with his own ; if I laugh loud and heartily 
 when he only smiles, or, on the contrary, only smile 
 when he laughs loud and heartily ; in ali these cases, 
 as soon as he comes from considering the object, to 
 observe how I am affected by it, according as there is 
 more or less disproportion between his sentiments and 
 mine, I must incur a greater or less degree of his dis- 
 approbation ; and upon all occasions his own senti- 
 ments are the standards and measures by which he 
 judges of mine." 
 
 It follows from this that our earliest moral judgments 
 are passed, not upon ourselves, but upon others. 
 "Our first ideas," he says, 1 " of personal beauty and 
 deformity, are drawn from the shape and appearance 
 
 IIL. chap i
 
 10.] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 143 
 
 of others, not from our own. We soon become sen- 
 sible, however, that others exercise the same criticism 
 upon us." "In the same manner our first moral 
 criticisms are exercised upon the character and conduct 
 of other people; and we are all very forward to 
 observe how each of these affects us. But we soon 
 learn that other people are equally frank with regard 
 to our own. We become anxious to know how far 
 we deserve their censure or applause, and whether to 
 them we must necessarily appear those agreeable 
 or disagreeable creatures which they represent us. We 
 begin, upon this account, to examine our own passions 
 and conduct, and to consider how these must appear 
 to them, by considering how they would appear to us 
 if in their situation. We suppose ourselves the spec- 
 tators of our own behaviour, and endeavour to imagine 
 what effect it would, in this light, produce upon us. 
 This is the only looking-glass by which we can, in 
 some measure, with the eyes of other people, scrutinise 
 the propriety of our own conduct. If in this view it 
 pleases us, we are tolerably satisfied. We can be 
 more indifferent about the applause, and, in some 
 measure, despise the censure of the world ; secure 
 that, however misunderstood or misrepresented, we 
 are the natural and proper objects of approbation." 
 
 " When I endeavour,'' he goes on, " to examine my 
 own conduct, when I endeavour to pass sentence upon 
 it, and either to approve or condemn it, it is evident 
 that, in all such cases, I divide myself, as it were, into 
 two persons; and that I, the examiner and judge, re- 
 present a different character from that other I, the 
 person whose conduct is examined into, and judged of. 
 The first is the spectator, whose sentiments with regard
 
 144 ETHICS. [BK. i., CH. VL 
 
 to my own conduct I endeavour to get into, by placing 
 myself in his situation, and by considering how it 
 would appear to me, when seen from that particular 
 point of view. The second is the agent ; the person 
 whom I properly call myself, and of whose conduct, 
 under the character of a spectator, I was endeavouring 
 to form some opinion. The first is the judge ; the 
 second the person judged of. But that the judge 
 should, in every respect, be the same with the person 
 judged of, is as impossible, as that the cause should, 
 in every respect, be the same with the effect." 
 
 Adam Smith was thus led to the idea of what he 
 called the "impartial spectator," from whose point of 
 view our moral judgments are pronounced. He distin- 
 guishes this point of view as that of "the man within," 
 whose judgments are opposed to those of the "man 
 without." An appeal, he says, 1 lies from the opinions 
 of mankind " to a much higher tribunal, to the tribunal 
 of their own consciences, to that of the supposed im- 
 partial and well-informed spectator, to that of the man 
 within the breast, the great judge and arbiter of their 
 conduct." 
 
 11. THE IDEAL SELF. How far this conception of 
 an "impartial spectator" is valuable, and what exactly 
 is to be meant by his "impartiality," we cannot here 
 discuss. I have given this reference to Adam Smith 
 merely on account of the clearness with which he brings 
 out the fact that our moral judgments involve a certain 
 reference to a point of view higher than that of the in- 
 dividual who acts an appeal, so to speak, "from 
 Philip drunk to Philip sober." The point of view to 
 which an appeal is thus made may perhaps be most 
 L, Part IIL.chap.ii.
 
 II.] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAL JUDGMENT. 14$ 
 
 fittingly described as that of the Ideal Self. At early 
 stages of development it corresponds to what Clifford 
 described as " the Tribal Self." The normal member 
 of the tribe * may be said to be the ' ' impartial spectator " 
 to whose judgment the appeal is made. At more 
 advanced stages of human development the nature of 
 the Ideal Self becomes more complicated; and we 
 cannot discuss it satisfactorily until we have con- 
 sidered the significance of the moral standard. In 
 the meantime this much seems necessary in order to 
 bring out the fact that in the moral judgment there is 
 an appeal from the Universe of the individual con- 
 sciousness to a higher or more comprehensive system. 
 With this in view, we are now able to proceed to the 
 consideration of the various theories of the moral 
 standard. 
 
 1 This may be compared with the view of the " normal man,* 
 taken by such a writer as Dr. Simmel. A somewhat similar concep- 
 tion is contained in the theory of the standard of moral value, given 
 by Meinong in his Psycholo&scb-ethischc Untersuchungcn zur Werti* 
 theorie. 
 
 10
 
 
 146 ETHICS. [BK. I., CH. VI. 
 
 NOTE ON THE MEANING OF CONSCIENCE. 
 
 Throughout this chapter, as well as some of the preceding, w 
 have had frequent occasion to refer to conscience ; and it may be 
 well at this point to explain more precisely the sense (or senses) in 
 which this term is used. The term is derived from the Latin con- 
 scire, to be conscious (of wrong). The Greek ovwiijaw, the 
 German Gewissen, and the old English Inwit,a.re similar in meaning. 
 Conscientia used to be employed almost indifferently for conscience 
 and for consciousness in general ; and in English, as in French, 1 the 
 term conscience is occasionally found with the latter meaning. It 
 is in this sense that Milton says, referring to the loss of his eyes, 
 
 " What supports me dost thou ask ? 
 The conscience, Friend, to have lost them overplied 
 In liberty's defence, my noble task, 
 Of which all Europe rings from side to side." 
 But even here there is perhaps a certain implication of a moral 
 consciousness ; as there is also in Hamlet's saying, 
 
 " Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all," 
 (hough here it seems to mean little more than reflection. In Chau- 
 cer's description of the Prioress, where he says, 
 
 " All was conscience and tender heart," 
 
 It appears almost to mean sensibility. But the definitely moral 
 sense soon became established in English, especially under the 
 influence of such writers as Butler. Even in the moral sense of the 
 term, however, there is some ambiguity. It sometimes means a feel- 
 ing"of pleasure or pain, and especially a feeling of pain, accompany- 
 ing the violation of a recognised principle of duty. At other times 
 it means the principle of judgment by which we pronounce one 
 action or one kind of action, to be right and another wrong. In the 
 latter sense, again, it may refer to this principle of judgment as it 
 appears in a particular individual or in a body of men. Such 
 phrases as " the Non-Conformist Conscience," " the Conscience of 
 Europe," and the like, illustrate this use of the term. We shall have 
 to make some further comments on the nature of conscience, espe- 
 cially in dealing with the intuitional school of morals and with the 
 social nature of the moral consciousness. But this much seemed 
 necessary at present by way of general explanation of the use of 
 the term. 
 
 1 Malebranche and some other French writers use the term con* 
 iricncc, more particularly in the sense of s//-consciousness.
 
 I.] DEVELOPMENT OF ETHICAL THOUGHT. 147 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 THEORIES OF THE MORAL STANDARD. 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF ETHICAL THOUGHT. 
 
 1. EARLY GREEK ETHICS. Thought on Ethics, as 
 on most other scientific subjects, first took definite 
 shape among the Greeks. 1 Attention, however, was 
 not strongly drawn to this subject till a considerable 
 time after philosophical thought in general had begun 
 to develop. The earliest thinkers among the Greeks 
 directed their attention chiefly to physical inquiries 
 especially to the question, What is the world made of? 
 Two of the physical philosophers, however, do appear 
 to have touched with some definiteness upon the ethical 
 problem viz. Heraclitus and Democritus (sometimes 
 known as the "weeping" and the "laughing" philo- 
 sopher). These two may be regarded as the founders of 
 those modes of thinking which afterwards developed in- 
 to Stoicism and Epicureanism respectively. Heraclitus 
 took Fire as his fundamental physical principle i. e. 
 the bright and dry and he seems to have regarded 
 this as incessantly struggling with the dark and moist 
 principle which is opposed to it In the life of man he 
 
 1 For a more detailed account of the way in which this took place, 
 **fcrence should be made to Sidgwick's History of Ethics.
 
 148 ETHICS. [BK. u., CH. i 
 
 appears to have thought that this struggle can be found 
 going on ; and the great aim of the moral life is to 
 secure the victory for the bright and dry. ' ' Keep your 
 soul dry," was with him the fundamental moral law. 
 Hence also the saying, so often quoted, that ' ' the dry 
 soul [or the 'dry light '] is the best.'' This opposition 
 of the moist and dry the "blood and judgment "' 
 runs through a very long period of philosophic thought. 
 With Democritus, on the other hand, the fundamental 
 principle of morals seems to have been pleasure.' But 
 there is no evidence that either of these philosophers 
 made any attempt to develop his ethical ideas in a 
 systematic form. 
 
 2. THE SOPHISTS. Parmenides and the Pythago- 
 reans, and indeed to some extent all the early phi- 
 losophers, seem also to have touched, either in a purely 
 theoretical or in a more directly practical way, upon the 
 ethical and political side of speculation. In fact, from 
 quite an early period, philosophy among the Greeks 
 seems to have come to mean a way of living as well 
 as a way of thinking. 3 But it was that remarkable 
 group of teachers known as the Sophists who seem first 
 to have brought the ethical problem to the front. The 
 
 * " Blest are those 
 
 Whose blood and judgment are so well commingled. 
 That they are not a pipe for fortune's fingers 
 To play what stop she pleases." 
 On the views of Heraclitus, see Burnet's Early Greek Philosophy, 
 
 PP. 138, 139, 178, 179 
 
 Not, however, sensuous pleasure. It was rather peace or Arapof ia. 
 Perhaps his point of view might be compared with that represented, 
 In modern times, by Dr. Stanton Coit in a paper in Mind, Old Series, 
 VoL XI., p. 324 sqq. 
 
 Thus we hear of the " Parmenidean Life," of the Pythagorean 
 rules of conduct, &c Cf. Burnet, op. cit, pp. 29, 40, 182, 316
 
 3-] DEVELOPMENT OF ETHICAL THOUGHT. 149 
 
 aim of these teachers was to a large extent practical, 
 i. e. it was the aim of preparing the young men of 
 Athens to be efficient citizens. In instructing them in 
 the duties of citizenship, they found it necessary to 
 inquire into the basis of political obligation and of social 
 morality in general. This seems to have been done by 
 them in general in a serious and candid spirit ; but, 
 naturally enough, inquiries of this kind tended to be 
 somewhat subversive of the older moral standards, and 
 the more conservative minds were alarmed. This 
 alarm found expression especially in the satirical drama 
 of Aristophanes ; and as Plato also shared, to a con- 
 siderable extent, the unfavourable view thus taken of the 
 tendency of the sophistic teaching, the name of the 
 Sophists has fallen into evil odour. Probably this is 
 in the main unjust perhaps in pretty much the same 
 way as the criticisms of such men as Carlyle and 
 Ruskin on modern science were often unjust The 
 Sophists were probably the most enlightened men of 
 their day, and did more than any others to awaken the 
 intellectual life of the city. * 
 
 3. SOCRATES. Socrates was closely associated with 
 the Sophists, and indeed was regarded by Aristophanes 
 as the typical example of them. He was distinguished, 
 however, from most of the others by the fact that he 
 did not set himself up as a professional teacher, but 
 rather regarded himself throughout his life as a student 
 of moral science. When commended by the oracle for 
 his wisdom, he replied that it consisted only in know- 
 ing his own ignorance. By this attitude he displayed, 
 perhaps not more modesty (for his modesty was at 
 
 1 Reference may profitably be made to the articles on the " So 
 phisu and " Socrates " in the Encyclopaedia Bntatimca.
 
 i$o ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. L 
 
 least in part ironical), but at least more earnestness 
 than his fellow-Sophists. He was less of a dogmatist, 
 because he was more clearly aware of the difficulty of 
 the problem. The one point on which he was fully 
 convinced was the unsatisfactoriness of the commonly 
 received explanations of the moral life, and the neces- 
 sity for a more scientific account. He believed that 
 this was necessary, not merely for the satisfaction of 
 speculative curiosity, but for the sake of practical 
 morality. For it seemed to him that there could be no 
 true morality which did not rest on a scientific basis. 
 " Virtue," he said, " is knowledge " (or is science). He 
 believed that if any one fully understood the nature of 
 the moral end, he could not fail to pursue it On the 
 other hand, he conceived that if any one did not fully 
 understand the nature of the moral end, he could not 
 be moral except by accident ; and this is not, in the 
 full sense, morality at all Whatever is not of knowl- 
 edge is sin. 1 As to the nature of the moral end, how- 
 ever, Socrates only professed to be an inquirer. The 
 view that he suggested seems sometimes to have leaned 
 to Hedonism ; * but there is no reason to suppose that 
 he had explicitly developed any theory on the subject. 
 The fact that diverse schools arose, claiming him as 
 
 iThis is perhaps a slight exaggeration. But Socrates, like Platq 
 maintained that to be temperate or courageous without knowledge* 
 is to be temperate by a kind of intemperance or courageous by a 
 kind of cowardice. He even went so far as to say that it is better to 
 do wrong consciously than unconsciously ; since the former involves 
 at least the knowledge of right Cf. Zeller's Socrates and the Socrabc 
 Schools, p. 147. 
 
 * In Plato's Protagoras he is represented as definitely putting for- 
 ward such a doctrine ; and there are also indications of the sama 
 tendency in Xenophon's Memorabilia.
 
 5-] DEVELOPMENT OF ETHICAL THOUGHT. 151 
 
 master, seems to afford some evidence that his view 
 had not been clearly defined. 
 
 4. THE SCHOOLS OF ETHICAL THOUGHT. Immediately 
 after the time of Socrates, ethical speculation began to 
 run in separate schools, which with variations may be 
 said to have lasted even down to our own day. The 
 two most distinctly ethical schools, among the fol- 
 lowers of Socrates, were those of the Cynics and the 
 Cyrenaics, which afterwards gave rise to those of the 
 Stoics and Epicureans. The members of these schools 
 fixed on points connected with the general char- 
 acter and influence of Socrates, almost as much as 
 with his speculative activity. The Cynics were struck 
 with his independence and freedom from want ; and 
 they made this their fundamental principle. The Cy- 
 renaics were more impressed by his tact and skill in 
 making the most of his surroundings. The Cynics 
 were thus led to asceticism, and the Cyrenaics to 
 Hedonism. These two tendencies have persisted 
 throughout almost the whole course of ethical specula- 
 tion. 
 
 5. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE. But in the meantime 
 there were other writers who made more definite efforts 
 to connect ethical ideas with the general principles of 
 philosophy, and so to get beyond the one-sidedness of 
 opposing schools. Plato, in particular, put forward a 
 metaphysical view of the world, upon which he en- 
 deavoured to rest his ethical conceptions. His general 
 view is contained in what is known as the theory of 
 Ideas or Types. ' He believed that the fundamental 
 
 It is difficult to render this in English. The word " idea" 
 has come to mean in English (chiefly through the influence of Locke. 
 Berkeley, and Hume) that which exists or goes on in our head*
 
 152 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. i 
 
 reality of things is to be found in the Type to whid> 
 they conform, and to which they are imperfect approx- 
 imations. Among these Types he held that the most 
 fundamental is the Type or Idea of the Good, and it is 
 in approximating to this that the ideal of virtue is to be 
 found. To understand this Type it is necessary to go 
 through a course of metaphysical training ; and hence 
 the highest form of virtue is attainable only by the 
 philosopher. Plato, however, recognised also a lower 
 form of rirtue which can be cultivated by the good 
 citizen, and he was accordingly led to analyse the 
 virtue of the citizen. Aristotle carried this analysis 
 further, and even devoted a considerable part of his 
 great work on Ethics to the description of the various 
 aspects of the virtuous life as found in the Athenian 
 society of his time, * though he agreed with Plato in 
 thinking that the highest type of life is to be found in 
 the contemplation of the philosopher, rather than in 
 the active life of the citizen. The opposition thus in- 
 troduced between the life of the philosopher and that 
 of the ordinary citizen was further developed by the 
 Stoics. They flourished at the time when the Greek 
 City State was decaying, and were thus not able, aa 
 Plato and Aristotle had been, to see in the life of the 
 citizen the type of an ideal self-realization. Hence 
 they were led to seek for the highest form of human 
 
 Our word " Ideal " comes nearer to the Platonic meaning, provided 
 we remember that he understands it to signify, not an unreal 
 hadow-picture, but rather the most real of all things, of which th 
 existent world is but a shadow (or, as he seems to have generally 
 conceived it, a realization in an imperfect medium the vwoaoxi of 
 the Tinueus.) Cf. above, p. 28, note, and below, pp. 266-7. 
 
 1 This species of Descriptive Ethics was further developed by 
 Thoophrastus, the chief of Aristotle's disciples. See his Characters*
 
 /.] DEVELOPMENT OF ETHICAL THOUGHT. 153 
 
 life in the perfect independence of the Sage, rather 
 than in the activity of the good citizen. A similar ten- 
 dency appears in the schools of the Epicureans and 
 Sceptics. It was only with the advent of Christianity 
 that it again became possible to conceive of an ideal 
 kingdom, of which all are members, and in which even 
 the humblest citizen may participate by faith, though 
 unable to understand with any fulness the nature of the 
 unity within which his life is passed. 
 
 6. MEDIAEVAL ETHICS. Mediaeval ideas on Ethics 1 
 were much influenced by those of Plato and Aristotle, 
 but partly also by those of the Stoics and by concep- 
 tions derived from Christianity. The more religious 
 aspects of morals were specially developed ; and a good 
 deal of attention was also given to the application of 
 ethical ideas to the guidance of the individual life. 
 Casuistry owed its origin to the efforts that were made 
 in the latter direction. 
 
 7. SCHOOLS OF ETHICS IN MODERN TIMES. The de- 
 velopment of Ethics in modern times is considerably 
 more complex, and we can only indicate some of its 
 main lines. Descartes is generally regarded as the 
 founder of modern philosophy ; but his interests were 
 mainly metaphysical. In Ethics he and his school did 
 little more than develop the ideas of the Stoics, to which 
 they were specially attracted in consequence of the 
 opposition between mind and body involved in their 
 metaphysics. In the meantime, however, a more ma- 
 terialistic school of thought was growing up, led by 
 Gassendi and Hobbes, and the members of this school 
 allied themselves rather with the Epicurean school of 
 
 > These are dealt with pretty fully in Sidgwick's History of Ethic*
 
 154 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. L 
 
 ancient times. Gassendi was definitely a disciple of 
 Epicurus. Hobbes worked out a more independent 
 line, regarding the attainment of power as the great aim 
 of human life. Hobbes was opposed by the Cambridge 
 Platonists and by Cumberland, who endeavoured to 
 bring out the more social, and at the same time the 
 more rational, side of human nature. Out of their posi- 
 tion was developed what came to be known as the 
 Moral Sense School, represented by Shaftesbury and 
 Hutcheson. According to these writers we have an 
 intuitive perception of the distinction between right 
 and wrong, similar to the aesthetic perception of the 
 distinction between the beautiful and the ugly ; but at 
 the same time this perception is capable of explanation. 
 It depends on the social nature of man. What is bene- 
 ficial to society strikes one naturally as good ; what 
 is harmful is instinctively regarded as bad. This point 
 of view forms a sort of watershed, from which several 
 streams of tendency in ethical speculation emerge. 
 Some writers tended to emphasise exclusively the fact 
 that there is an intuitive perception of right and wrong. 
 Out of this came the Intuitionist School of Reid and his 
 followers. Others were specially struck by the fact 
 that the distinction between goo^ and bad rests on a 
 reasonable consideration of the results of action. Hence 
 arose the rational school, represented by Locke, Clarke, 
 Wollaston, &c. This line of thought may be said to 
 have culminated in Kant; and, in the works of his 
 immediate successors, it gave rise to a point of view 
 approximating to those of Plato and Aristotle. This 
 view afterwards passed into English thought in tha 
 school of modern Idealism represented by Green and 
 Others. Finally, some of those who were impressed
 
 7-] DEVELOPMENT OF ETHICAL THOUGHT. 1 55 
 
 by the teaching of the Moral Sense School were led to 
 attach special importance to the fact that the good is 
 that which is beneficial to society, or that which pro- 
 motes human happiness. From this consideration the 
 school of modern Utilitarianism was developed. These 
 three schools the Intuitionist, the Rational, and the 
 Utilitarian, were the main lines of modern ethical 
 thought, until the school of the modern Evolutionists 
 arose.
 
 156 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CIL IL 
 
 CHAPTER IL 
 
 THE TYPES OF ETHICAL THEORY. 
 
 1. GENERAL SURVEY. We are now able to take ac- 
 count of the leading types of ethical thought that hava 
 occurred throughout the history of speculation. In 
 details there is wide diversity, but in their broad out- 
 lines the types are few and simple. Two types, in 
 particular, come up again and again in the course 
 of ethical thought as opposing points of view the 
 types represented by Heraclitus and Democritus, An- 
 tisthenes and Aristippus,Zeno and Epicurus, Descartes * 
 and Gassendi, Cudworth and Hobbes, Reid and Hume, 
 Kant and Bentham. This antithesis may be roughly 
 expressed as that between those who lay the emphasis 
 on reason and those who lay the emphasis on passion ; 
 but, as we go on, we shall have to endeavour to define 
 it more precisely. Besides these opposing schools, 
 however, we find throughout the course of ethical 
 speculation another point of view which may be de- 
 scribed as that which lays the emphasis on the concrete 
 personality of man, rather than on any such abstract 
 quality as reason or passion. This point of view does 
 not usually appear in opposition to the other two, but 
 rather as a view in which they are reconciled and 
 transcended. It appears chiefly in the great specula- 
 
 1 Geulincx and Malebranche represented the more ethical aspect 
 of the Cartesian School somewhat more definitely than DesoutM 
 himscli
 
 2.] TYPES OF ETHICAL THEORY. 157 
 
 live thinkers who rise above the oppositions of the 
 schools such as Plato and Aristotle, Hegel, an*" one 
 or two others. ' In recent times, however, it has come 
 out more distinctly as one school (or perhaps we should 
 say two schools) side by side with the others the 
 school which may be broadly characterized as that of 
 development. Besides these main positions there are 
 a number of others that are more transitory and les 
 recurrent such as the aesthetic school, represented 
 chiefly by the Moral Sense writers and Herbart ; the 
 school of sympathy, represented by Adam Smith ; and 
 one or two others. 
 
 We must now try to make the main lines of contrast 
 a little clearer. 
 
 2. REASON AND PASSION. It has already been in- 
 dicated that the main line of opposition may be said 
 to consist in the antithesis between reason and passion. 
 We have seen that the human consciousness may be 
 described as a Universe or system, consisting, when 
 we regard it from the active point of view, of various 
 desires placed within a more or less fully co-ordinated 
 group. Now it is possible to direct special attention 
 either to the separate desires existing within this whole 
 or to the form of unity by which it coheres as a system. 
 We may regard human life as essentially a struggle 
 between desires seeking gratification, or as the effort 
 to bring those desires into subjection to the idea of a 
 system. The antithesis between the two schools arises, 
 
 1 Spinoza should on the whole be classed with them. Though a 
 Cartesian, he fully recognises the element of truth in the point of 
 view of such a writer as Hobbes, and his final view of the highest 
 good as being found in the " Intellectual Love of God," is to a 
 large extent a reproduction of the teaching of Plato and Aristotle 
 Wtth regard to the Speculative Life.
 
 158 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. ii. 
 
 in the main, from the tendency to lay emphasis on one 
 or other of these sides. The one tendency is perhaps 
 best represented by such a doctrine as that of Hume, 
 that "reason is and must always be the slave of the 
 passions, " i. e. that reason can do nothing but guide 
 the particular impulses to their gratification. When 
 this view is taken, the chief good of life is almost in- 
 evitably conceived as consisting simply in the gratifica- 
 tion of the particular impulses as they arise. This is 
 the view of the Cyrenaics, and, in a modified form, of 
 the Hedonists in general The opposite view is that 
 which recognises some law to which the particular 
 impulses must be subjected, in order to bring them 
 into systematic form. In the history of ethical thought, 
 this law has generally been conceived as the law of 
 reason, just as the attainment of the end of the parti- 
 cular impulses has generally been thought of as plea- 
 sure. But Hobbes thought of the end of the desires 
 rather as Power than as Pleasure ; and so also there have 
 been thinkers who have thought of the law to which 
 the impulses are to be subjected in some other form 
 than as the law of reason. Hence we are led to state 
 the opposition in a slightly different form. 
 
 3. THE RIGHT AND THE GOOD. It has been pointed 
 out already that there are two main forms in which 
 the moral ideal presents itself as the Right and as the 
 Good. We may think of morality as conformity to a 
 rule or standard, or as the pursuit of an end. Now the 
 distinction between the two opposing schools of Ethics 
 connects itself, to a considerable extent, with this dis- 
 tinction. It is on the whole true that the line of 
 thinkers from Heraclitus, through the Stoics, to Kant, 
 think of the supreme standard in morality as some
 
 g 4.] TYPES OF ETHICAL THEORY. 1 59 
 
 Bort of law, rule, or imperative, from which we learn 
 what it is right to do ; while the line of thinkers from 
 Democritus, through the Epicureans, to Bentham, think 
 father of a Good (generally described as Happiness) at 
 which men aim, and by reference to which their actions 
 are to be praised or blamed. The two schools may 
 thus be roughly characterised as those that take Duty 
 and Happiness, respectively, as their standards. 
 
 4. DUTY, HAPPINESS, PERFECTION. If we describe 
 the two opposing theories as those of Duty and Happi- 
 ness, the term Perfection may appropriately be used to 
 characterise the middle theory, which, to a large extent, 
 combines the other two. 
 
 It may be noted that these are not merely three 
 different theories of the moral standard, but that differ- 
 ent types of life correspond to them. It has been re- 
 marked of Kant that his life reminds us of the " categor- 
 ical imperative of duty," which was for him the kernel 
 of morals. 1 In like manner the life of Bentham may 
 
 1 Caird's Critical Philosophy of Kant, VoL I., p. 63. Dr. Caird quotes, 
 in this connection, the following humorous account of Kant from 
 Heine. " The life of Immanuel Kant is hard to describe t he had 
 indeed neither life nor history in the proper sense of the words. He 
 lived an abstract, mechanical, old-bachelor existence in a quiet, re- 
 mote street of Konigsberg, an old city at the northeastern boundary 
 of Germany. I do not believe that the great cathedral clock of 
 that city accomplished its day's work in a less passionate and more 
 regular way than its countryman, Immanuel Kant Rising from bed, 
 coffee-drinking, writing, lecturing, eating, walking, everything had 
 its fixed time ; and the neighbours knew that it must be exactly half- 
 past four when they saw Professor Kant in his grey coat with his 
 cane in his hand step out of his house door, and move towards the 
 little lime-tree avenue, which is called after him the Philosopher's 
 Walk, Eight times he walked up and down that walk at every 
 season of the year, and when the weather was bad or the grey 
 oiouds threatened rain, his servant, old Lampe, was seen anxiously
 
 160 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. IL 
 
 be taken as typical of the Hedonistic Dosition a life 
 spent in devotion to the improvement of the mechanical 
 conditions of existence, the means of happiness. 1 The 
 kind of life that corresponds to Perfection would be best 
 represented by such men as Plato and Aristotle, or by 
 the modern Greek, Goethe. 
 
 To some extent the three great peoples, the Hebrews, 
 Romans, and Greeks, might be taken as representing 
 these three ideals. With the Hebrews the law of 
 righteousness is supreme. The Romans were also 
 devoted to law, but in a different sense. The law 
 which interested them most was rather that by which 
 the mechanical conditions of life are regulated, and 
 which provide the material of happiness. The Greeks 
 obviously represent the ideal of perfect development of 
 personality. 
 
 5. MIXED THEORIES. In contrasting these different 
 
 following him with a large umbrella under his arm, like an image of 
 Providence." " Strange contrast between the outer life of the man 
 and his world-destroying, thought Of a truth, if the citizens of 
 Konigsberg had had any inkling of the meaning of that thought, 
 they would have shuddered before him as before an executioner. 
 But the good people saw nothing in him but a professor of philoso- 
 phy, and when he passed at the appointed hour, they gave him 
 friendly greetings and set their watches." 
 
 1 Bentham's great interest was legislation. " Bentham," says Sir 
 Henry Maine (Early History of Institutions, p. 400), " was in truth 
 neither a jurist nor a moralist in the proper sense of the word. He 
 theorises not on law but on legislation ; when carefully examined, he 
 may be seen to be a legislator even in morals. No doubt his language 
 seems sometimes to imply that he is explaining moral phenomena ; in 
 reality he wishes to alter or rearrange them according to a working 
 rule gathered from his reflections on legislation. This transfer of 
 his working rule from legislation to morality seems to me the true 
 ground of the criticisms to which Bentham is justly open as an 
 analyst of moral facts." On this point, see below, Book II., chap, vi, 
 
 14
 
 5-1 TYPES OP ETHICAL THEORY. l6l 
 
 views of the supreme standard in morals, it should be 
 remembered always that many of the theories held by 
 the most representative writers cannot be classed 
 quite definitely under any one head, but rather re- 
 present combinations of the different views. Thus, 
 even the Stoics may be said to stand midway between 
 the theory of Duty and that of Perfection ; for though 
 their ideal may be described as that of obedience to 
 law, it is at the same time that of the attainment of th 
 life of the perfectly wise man. The same applies to 
 the Cartesians and to Kant. Again, in the Moral Sense 
 School, the ideas of Duty and Happiness are to a large 
 extent combined, as they are also, in a different way, 
 in the views of Dr. Sidgwick. The modern Evolution- 
 ists, such as Mr. Herbert Spencer, combine the ideas 
 of Happiness and Perfection. And in many other 
 ways the different theories have been united. But, as 
 we are not at present studying the history of ethical 
 theory, but only its most typical forms, it is most con- 
 venient for us to consider the different views, as far as 
 possible, apart
 
 l6f ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. IIL, PT. L 
 
 CHAPTER IIL 
 
 THE STANDARD AS LAW. 
 PART I. : THE GENERAL IDEA OF MORAL LAW. 
 
 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. In dealing with the 
 different types of ethical theory, it seems most con- 
 venient to start with those that take as their funda- 
 mental conception the idea of Duty, Right, Law, 
 Obligation. To the race, as to the child, morality 
 presents itself first in the form of commandments, and 
 even in the form of threats. It is only at a later stage 
 of development that we learn to regard the moral life 
 as a good, and finally as the realisation of our own 
 nature. Hence it seems most natural to begin with 
 those theories which are based rather on the idea of 
 tightness than on that of the Good. From this point 
 of view, morality presents itself as obedience to the 
 Law of Duty. The significance of this conception, 
 and the different forms which it may take, are what we 
 have now to consider. 
 
 2. THE MEANING OF LAW IN ETHICS. A good deal 
 of confusion has been caused in the study of Ethics, 
 as well as in that of some other subjects, by a certain 
 ambiguity in the word Law. 1 It is important, there- 
 fore, that we should try to understand exactly the 
 sense in which it is here to be used. 
 
 It has been customary to distinguish two distinct 
 
 * C/. Whately's Logic, p. 209 ; and Welton's Manual of Logic, voL i,
 
 2.J GENERAL IDEA OF MORAL LAW. 163 
 
 senses in which it may be used. We speak of the laws 
 of a country and also of the laws of nature ; but it is 
 evident that the kinds of law referred to in these two 
 phrases are very different. The laws of a country 
 are made by a people or by its rulers ; and, even in the 
 case of the Medes and Persians, there is always a 
 possibility that they may be changed. There is also 
 always a possibility that the inhabitants of the country 
 may disobey them ; and, as a general rule, they have 
 no application at all to the inhabitants of other coun- 
 tries. The laws of nature, * on the other hand, are con- 
 stant, inviolable, and all-pervading. There are three 
 respects, therefore, in which different kinds of law 
 may be distinguished. Some laws are constant : 
 others are variable. Some are inviolable : others are 
 liable to be disobeyed. Some are universal : others 
 have only a limited application. The last of these three 
 points, however, is scarcely distinguishable from the 
 first : for what is universal is generally also constant 
 and necessary, and vice versa. Consequently, it may 
 be sufficient for the present to distinguish different kinds 
 of laws as (i) changeable or unchangeable, (2) violable 
 or inviolable though we shall have to return shortly to 
 the third principle of distinction. Adopting these two 
 principles, we might evidently have four different 
 classes of laws (i) Those that can be both changed and 
 violated, (2) those that can be changed but cannot be 
 violated, (3) those that can be violated but cannot be 
 changed, (4) those that can neither be changed nor 
 violated. 
 
 i 1 mean such laws as those that are stated In treatises on theore- 
 tical mechanics. These laws relate to tendencies that are operative 
 throughout the whole of nature. See following note.
 
 164 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. in., PT. i. 
 
 Of the first and last of these, illustrations have 
 already been given. Of the second also it is not dif- 
 ficult to discover examples. The laws of the solar 
 system, of day and night, seedtime and harvest, and 
 all the vicissitudes of the seasons, are inviolable so 
 long as certain conditions last; but if these conditions 
 were changed say, by the cooling of the sun, by the 
 retardation of the earth's velocity, or its collision with 
 some comet or erratic meteor the laws also would 
 change with them. 1 Again, most of the laws of po- 
 litical economy are of this character. They hold good 
 of certain types of society, and among men who are 
 swayed by certain motives ; and within these limits 
 they are inviolable. But change -the conditions of 
 society, or the characters of the men who compose it, 
 and in many cases the laws will break down. Such 
 laws are sometimes said to be hypothetical They are 
 valid only on the supposition that certain conditions 
 are present and remain unchanged. Some philoso- 
 phers 2 have thought that even the laws of mathematics 
 may be of this character that there might be a world 
 in which two and two would be equal to five ; and 
 that if a triangle were formed with the diameter of the 
 earth for its base and one of the fixed stars for its apex, 
 its three angles might not be equal to two right angles. 3 
 But this appears to be a mistake. The laws of 
 
 * It might be urged that all laws of nature are of this character, 
 I. . that they are all hypothetical, depending on the continuance of 
 the present constitution of the universe. This is true, unless there 
 are some laws of such a kind that no system of nature could exist 
 without them. The consideration of this question, however, belongs 
 to Metaphysics. 
 
 Tbi waa the opinion of Gauss, for instance
 
 2.] GENERAL IDEA OF MORAL LAW. 1 6$ 
 
 mathematics belong rather to the last of our four 
 classes. 
 
 The laws of Ethics, however, must on the whole be 
 regarded as belonging to the third class. They cannot 
 be changed, but they may be violated. It is true, as 
 has been already stated, that the particular rules of 
 morals may vary with different conditions of life ; but 
 the broad principles remain always the same, and are 
 applicable not only to all kinds of men, but to all 
 rational beings. If a spirit were to come among us 
 from another world, we might have no knowledge of 
 his nature and constitution. We might not know what 
 would taste bitter or sweet to him, what he would 
 judge to be hard or soft, or how he would be affected by 
 heat or sound or colour. But we should know at least 
 that for him, as for us, the whole is greater than any 
 one of its parts, and every event has a cause ; and that 
 he, like us, must not tell lies, and must not wantonly 
 destroy life. 1 These laws are unchangeable. They 
 can, however, be broken. We may, indeed, speak of 
 ethical principles which it is impossible to violate. An 
 ethical writer, for instance, may insist on the truth that 
 every sin brings with it some form of punishment. 
 This is a truth from which there is no escape ; but it is 
 rather a metaphysical than an ethical truth. It is a 
 fact about the constitution of the world, not a moral 
 law. A moral law states something that ought to 
 happen, not something that necessarily does happen. 
 
 Moral laws are not the only laws that are of this 
 
 1 Some theological writers have denied this, holding that goodness 
 in God may be something entirely different from goodness in man. 
 This opinion is ably refuted by Mill in his Examination of Hamilton* 
 chap, vii
 
 1 66 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. m., PT. L 
 
 character. On the contrary, the laws of every strictly 
 normative and of every practical science are essentially 
 similar. No one can make the fundamental principles 
 of architecture, navigation, or rhetoric, in any way 
 different from what they are ; though in practice any 
 one who is willing to take the consequences may defy 
 them. No doubt the rules of these sciences might 
 require modification if they were to be applied to the 
 inhabitants of another planet than ours ; and even on 
 our own planet they are not absolutely rigid. A style 
 of building which is suitable for Iceland would scarcely 
 be adapted for the Tropics. The navigation of the 
 Mississippi is different from that of the Atlantic. And 
 the oratory which would awake the enthusiasm of an 
 Oriental people might move an Anglo-Saxon audience 
 only to derision. Still, it is possible in all these 
 sciences to lay down broad general laws which shall 
 be applicable universally, or at least applicable to all 
 conditions under which it is conceivable that we should 
 wish to apply them laws, indeed, from which even the 
 particular modifications required in special cases might 
 be deduced. For example, we might take it as a prin- 
 ciple of rhetoric that if an audience is to be moved to 
 the performance of some action or the acceptance of 
 some truth to which they may be expected to be disin- 
 clined, they ought to be led up to the point by an easy 
 transition, from step to step, beginning with some 
 things that are obvious and familiar, and in which 
 their affections are naturally engaged. From this it 
 might be at once inferred that the character of such an 
 appeal ought to vary with different audiences, accord- 
 ing to the nature of the objects to which their experience 
 has accustomed them, to the intensity of the feelings
 
 3.] GENERAL IDEA OF MORAL LAW. 1 6; 
 
 which have connected themselves with these objects, 
 and to the average rapidity of their intellects in passing 
 from one point to another. The law is constant : it is 
 only the application that varies. The science of logic 
 gives us a still more obvious instance of such laws. 
 The rules of correct thinking cannot be changed, 
 though the particular errors to which men are most 
 liable may vary with different objects of study, different 
 languages, and different habits of mind. In this case 
 also, as in Ethics, the laws cannot be changed, 1 but 
 may be violated.* 
 
 3. Is, MUST BE, AND OUGHT TO BE. The distinctions 
 expressed in the preceding section may be conveniently 
 summed up by saying that some laws express what is, 
 some what must be (or shall be), and some what ought 
 
 1 II may be urged, no doubt, that some at least of the laws of logic 
 are applicable only within certain hypothetical limits. Some of 
 them, for instance (viz. those commonly discussed under the head 
 of Formal Logic), depend on the admission of the principles of 
 identity, contradiction, and excluded middle ; and it may be main- 
 tained that there are objects to which these principles are not strictly 
 applicable. But this point is too subtle to be more than merely 
 hinted at in this place. 
 
 a This distinction between laws, which can and cannot be violated, 
 like other distinctions of the same sort, must be interpreted with 
 some care, and not pressed too far. In a sense it is possible to 
 violate a natural law, i. e. we can evade the conditions under which 
 it holds. In a sense also it is not possible to violate a moral law. 
 To act wrongly is, as we shall see, to be in contradiction with our- 
 selves ; and " a house which is divided against itself cannot stand." 
 Similarly, even the law of a nation, if it is a real law, cannot be 
 violated. Punishment may be said to be the open expression of this 
 impossibility. The violation recoils upon the perpetrator, and anni- 
 hilates him and his act. Cf. below, Book III., chap, vi., 5. But of 
 course all this does not in anyway interfere with the relatively 
 true distinction between these different classes of law.
 
 168 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. III., PT. L 
 
 to be. * What we call laws of nature are simply general 
 statements about what is. The law of gravitation 
 simply states that bodies tend to move in certain ways 
 relatively to one another. Even the laws recognised 
 in the more abstract sciences are of this character. The 
 law of demand and supply simply states that, as a 
 general rule, prices tend to adjust themselves in par- 
 ticular ways.* Laws of nations, on the other hand, 
 state what must be, i. e. what is bound to be unless 
 certain penalties are incurred. Atoms and prices do 
 not and cannot violate their laws, so long as the 
 appropriate conditions hold. Their laws are nothing 
 but statements of the way in which certain occurrences 
 uniformly take place under certain conditions. 
 Human beings, on the other hand, may and do violate 
 
 1 It is one of the very few advantages, from a philosophical point 
 of view, which the English language possesses over the German, 
 that we have the two words shall and ought, where they have only 
 sollen, which corresponds rather more closely to shall than to ought. 
 Hegel's objection to the use of the word sollen (Logic of Hegel, 
 Wallace's Translation, p. n) seem to be due chiefly to the fact that 
 it suggests (i) something future, as opposed to what is actually 
 realised, (2) something commanded by an external authority. The 
 English word might seems to be free from both these defects. 
 
 2 It has already been indicated (note to Introduction, chap. L), 
 that there is a sense in which the principles of the more abstract 
 sciences may be said to be normative that theoretical astronomy 
 may be said to state the laws according to which the planets ought 
 to move, that geometry may be said to state the laws that ought to 
 hold in a perfect triangle or circle, and so forth. But "ought" in 
 this sense means that these relationships do hold, in so far as the 
 appropriate conditions are realised ; and the significance of the 
 sciences lies in the fact that, in the concrete world of experience, 
 they either do approximately hold, or are determining conditions 
 in the actual constitution of things. Truly normative principles 
 are not of this nature. If all men were to go mad, the principle* 
 of correct thinking would still bold as before.
 
 4-] GENERAL IDEA OF MORAL LAW. 169 
 
 the laws of their country. But the law states that they 
 must not do so, and attaches penalties (or sanctions) 
 to the doing of it. A moral law, finally, is a law that 
 states that something ought to be. It is the statement 
 of an Ideal. Thus, if a Government decides to enter 
 upon a war which is known by the citizens to be un- 
 just, some of the soldiers may feel that it is wrong to 
 serve, /'. e. that it is contrary to their ideal of what is 
 right in conduct. Here they come in conflict with 
 what they recognise as a moral law. Nevertheless, 
 they must not desert ; i. e. they will be shot if they do. 
 Here there is a law of the State. Suppose they do 
 desert and are shot, they die by a law of nature. 
 
 4. THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE. We are now in a 
 position to understand the important conception which 
 was introduced by Kant with reference to the moral 
 law. He said that it was of the nature of a categorical 
 imperative. The meaning of this may readily be made 
 apparent. All laws which are not simply expressions 
 of natural uniformities may be said to be of the nature 
 of commands. The laws of nations are commands 
 issued by the government, with penalties attached to 
 the violation of them. Moral laws may also (subject 
 to a certain qualification) be said to be commands, 
 though we are not yet in a position to consider how 
 they are issued. Now commands may be absolute in 
 their character, or subject to qualification. The laws 
 of a nation are laws that we must obey, unless we 
 are prepared to sitffer the consequences of disobedience. 
 Again, the fundamental principles of rhetoric may be 
 said to be of the nature of commands or rules ; but the 
 commands which are thus laid down are applicable 
 only to rhetoricians. The laws of architecture, in like
 
 I/O ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. III., PT. I. 
 
 / 
 
 manner, apply only to those who wish to construct 
 stable, commodious, and beautiful buildings. Some 
 of the laws of political economy, again, are neither 
 constant nor universal. They are not constant; for 
 they may vary with different conditions of society. 
 They are not universal ; for they are applicable only 
 to those who wish to produce wealth. Even the laws 
 of formal logic are not universal. They apply only 
 to those who wish to be self-consistent. * Now a man 
 may reject this aim. He may say, with Emerson,* 
 "Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then ? " 
 "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, 
 adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. 
 With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to 
 do." 3 Such imperatives as these, therefore, are merely 
 hypothetical. They apply only to those who adopt the 
 
 1 1 assume of course here that logic is to be regarded as a norma- 
 tive science, laying down the rules of consistent thought Some 
 logicians have treated the subject in a different way, regarding it 
 either as an ordinary positive science, or as an art, or as a combina- 
 tion of the two. 
 
 a Essay on " Self-Reliance." 
 
 * No doubt Emerson is referring here to consistency in action, 
 rather than to consistency in thought But the same might be said 
 of the latter under certain conditions. " In order to think at all," as 
 Mr. Bradley says (Appearance and Reality), " you must subject your- 
 self to a standard." Thinking is a game, and " if you sit down to the 
 game, there is only one way of playing." So the laws of moral- 
 ity may be said to constitute the rules of the game. But the latter 
 Is a game that we must be always playing. We may take a holiday 
 from thinking, and feel or dream instead, and there is nothingin the 
 laws of thinking to prevent this. Morality, on the other hand, claimi 
 a universal jurisdiction. It is not a rule of thought that you must 
 always be thinking ; but it is a rule of action that you must always 
 be doing what is right in the given conditions. 
 
 4 Such laws as those of political economy are thus hypothetical in 
 a double sense hypothetical with regard to the conditions under
 
 4-J GENERAL IDEA OF MORAL LAW. I /I 
 
 end with which the particular normative science is 
 concerned. 
 
 The laws of Ethics differ from all other laws in being 
 not hypothetical, but categorical. It is true that Emer- 
 son's paradox about consistency has been capped by 
 that of the preacher who bade us, "Be not righteous 
 overmuch." 1 But if this maxim is to have any 
 intelligible meaning, we must understand the term 
 " righteous " in a somewhat narrow sense. It cannot 
 be taken to mean that we should not, to too great an 
 extent, do what we ought to do. This would be a 
 contradiction in terms. If we are not to be too fana- 
 tical in the observance of particular moral rules, it must 
 be in deference to other moral rules or principles that 
 are of a still higher authority. The supreme moral 
 principle, whatever it may be, lays its command upon 
 us absolutely, and admits of no question. What we 
 ought to do we ought to do. There can be no higher 
 law by which the moral imperative might be set aside. 
 
 There are, indeed, some other laws which might 
 eeem to be scarcely less absolute, because they relate 
 to ends that every one naturally seeks. Thus, every 
 one would like to be happy ; and consequently if there 
 were any practical science of happiness, every one 
 would be bound to follow its laws. Accordingly, Kant 
 called such laws assertorial,* because although they de- 
 pend on the hypothesis that we seek for happiness, yet 
 it may be at once asserted of every one that he does seek 
 
 which they are applicable, and hypothetical with regard to the end 
 with reference to which they are applicable. 
 
 1 Cf. Stephen's Science of Ethics, p. 418. "'Be good if you would 
 be happy,' seems to be the verdict even of worldly prudence ; but it 
 adds in an emphatic aside, ' Be not too good.' " 
 
 *Metaphysic of Morals, section IL
 
 1/2 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. III., PT. t 
 
 this end. Again, intellectual perfection is an end 
 which a rational being can hardly help desiring. There 
 is probably no one who would not, if he could, have 
 the penetration of a Newton, or the grasp of a Shake- 
 speare or a Goethe. Hence if there were any science 
 that taught how such perfection is to be attained, its 
 laws would have at least an almost universal applica- 
 tion. Still, even such laws as these are not quite 
 parallel to the laws of morals. Their universality, if 
 they are universal, depends on the fact that every one 
 chooses the end to which they have reference ; whereas 
 the laws of morals apply to all men irrespective of their 
 choice. If, indeed, happiness could be shown to be 
 necessarily bound up with virtue, and unhappiness 
 with vice, then the obligation to follow the rules of 
 happiness would have the same absoluteness as the 
 obligation to obey the moral law ; but only because 
 these two things would then be identical. In like 
 manner, if we were to accept quite literally the view 
 of Carlyle, that all intellectual perfection has a moral 
 root, so that a man's virtue is exactly proportional to 
 his intelligence, in this case also the laws of intel- 
 lectual perfection would become absolute, but only 
 because they would become moral. The moral law, 
 then, is unique. It is the only categorical imperative. 1 
 Up to this point, I have, so far as possible, been 
 following the account of Kant There are, however, 
 two points on which some slight criticism, or at least 
 caution, seems to be required, (i) It is somewhat 
 
 1 On this subject the student should consult Kant's Metaphystc oj 
 Morals, section II. The opening paragraphs of Clifford's Essay 
 " On the Scientific Basis of Morals ' may also be found suggestive, 
 though he does not entirely accept the view indicated above.
 
 5-] VARIOUS CONCEPTIONS OF MORAL LAW. 173 
 
 misleading to describe the moral law as an impera- 
 tive. At least it can only be so described on a certain 
 view of its nature, which will have to be further con- 
 sidered. To call it an imperative or command is to 
 represent it as being of the nature of a must rather 
 than of an ought. It should rather be described a 
 based on an ideal. (2) In saying that it is categorical, 
 we must remember that all that can at present be seen 
 to be categorical is the principle that we must do what 
 is right, when we know what it is. It remains to be 
 seen whether it is possible to lay down any rule for 
 the determination of what is right. If there is any 
 such rule, it will be categorical; but it may turn out 
 that there is none. In the latter case, it is somewhat 
 misleading to speak of a categorical imperative. 
 
 With these general remarks on the nature of moral 
 law, we may now proceed to ask what exactly the 
 law is which is thus categorically imposed. 
 
 PART II.: VARIOUS CONCEPTIONS OF THE MORAL 
 LAW. 
 
 5. THE LAW OF THE TRIBE. We have already seen 
 that the earliest form in which the idea of law pre- 
 sents itself is that of the law of the tribe, or of the 
 chief of the tribe. s But this is soon felt not to be cate- 
 gorical. It often comes into conflict with itself; and 
 the reflecting consciousness demands something more 
 consistent. At the best it furnishes a must, rather 
 
 1 An illustration of this form of law, in comparatively recent times, 
 may be found in the well-known saving of the Highland wife, when 
 her husband was at the foot of the gallows, " Go up, Donald, my 
 man ; the Laird bids ye." Contrast this with the attitude of Antigone^ 
 referred to above, Book I., chap, v., 7.
 
 i/4 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH, in., PT. 11 
 
 than an ought; and the free man soon rebels against 
 such government from without. 
 
 6. THE LAW OF GOD. It is a stage higher when 
 the moral law is distinguished from the law of the 
 land, and regarded as a principle which owes its 
 authority, not to any man or body of men, but to God 
 or the gods. The best known instance of such a set 
 of laws is to be found in the Ten Commandments of 
 the Jews. But these also may come into conflict, and 
 require qualification. Besides, the moral conscious- 
 ness soon begins to ask on what authority the divine 
 law rests. If it rest merely on the command of 
 powerful supernatural beings, it is still only a must, 
 not an ought. If God is not Himself righteous, His 
 law cannot be morally binding merely on account of 
 His superior power. But to ask whether God is right- 
 eous is to ask for a law above that of God Himself, 
 and by which God may be judged. Hence the law of 
 God cannot be accepted as final 
 
 7. THE LAW OF NATURE. In order to get over this 
 difficulty, the view has sometimes been taken that the 
 most fundamental law of all is that which lies in the 
 nature of things. In Greek Ethics, in particular, the 
 conception of nature (^y<rt?) plays a very prominent 
 part. The Greeks understood by nature the essential 
 constitution of things underlying their casual appear- 
 ances. It was in this sense, for instance, that the 
 Stoics used their famous phrase to "live according to 
 nature " (vtvere convenienler natures). In modern timea 
 also, especially in the latter part of the seventeenth and 
 the greater part of the eighteenth centuries, much was 
 made of the idea of natural law. Perhaps in Ethics 
 one of the most striking applications of this conception
 
 /] VARIOUS CONCEPTIONS OF MORAL LAW. 1/5 
 
 is to be found in the system of Samuel Clarke. Clarice 
 held that certain differences and relations between 
 things are inherent in their very nature, and that any 
 one who observes them in a careful and unprejudiced 
 way will become aware of these differences and rela- 
 tions. "The differences, relations, and proportions of 
 things both natural and moral, in which all unpreju- 
 diced minds thus naturally agree, are certain, unalter- 
 able, and real in the things themselves." ' To the laws 
 of nature thus discovered "the reason of all men every- 
 where naturally and necessarily assents, as all men 
 agree in their judgment concerning the whiteness of 
 the snow or the brightness of the sun." a " That from 
 these different relations of different things there neces- 
 sarily arises an agreement or disagreement of some 
 things with others, or a fitness or unfitness of the 
 application of different things or different relations, is 
 likewise as plain as that there is such a thing as pro- 
 portion in Geometry or Arithmetic, or uniformity or 
 difformity in comparing together the respective figures 
 of bodies. "3 Here we have the statement of the cele- 
 brated doctrine of "the fitness of things." But in all 
 statements of this sort, taken as the basis of moral 
 theory, there seems to be an obvious confusion in- 
 volved. There are certainly laws in nature ; but these, 
 as we have noted, are simply statements of the uni- 
 form ways in which things occur ; and such laws are 
 exhibited quite as much in what is evil as in what is 
 good. The destruction of a building by the explosion 
 of a bomb is as much in accordance with the fitness 
 of things, as deduced from the laws of nature, as the 
 
 1 Natural Religion, pp. 44-45.
 
 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. III., PT. II. 
 
 movements of the planetary system. 1 Fitness, in 
 ftny sense in which it can serve as the basis of 
 moral theories, must be fitness for something i. e. it 
 tnust involve some reference to an end or ideal ; and 
 no alchemy can ever extract this out of the mere 
 observation of natural laws. 2 The analysis of the 
 
 i As illustrating this confusion, reference may perhaps be made 
 to those primitive conceptions of the relation between the natural 
 and the moral order, according to which a man by committing a 
 crime might prcAuce an earthquake. Some interesting facts of this 
 sort are to be found in D'Alviella's Hibbert Lectures (e.g., p. 168). 
 Mill's Espy on ''Nature" (in his Three Essavs on Religion) is still 
 worth reading, with the view of clearing up this confusion. Cf. 
 also Marshall's Principles of Economics (3d Edn.), pp. 55-57. 
 
 * Cf. LQ Kossignol's Ethical Philosophy of Samuel Clarke, p. 43. Mr. 
 Leslie Stephen's comment on Clarke's doctrine (English Thought 
 in the Eighteenth Century, vol. ii., p. 7.) may be worth noticing here. 
 * An obvious difficulty," he says, " underlies all reasoning of this class, 
 even in its most refined shape. The doctrine might, on the general 
 assumptions of Clarke's philosophy, be applicable to the ' Laws of 
 Nature,' but is scarcely to be made applicable to the moral law. 
 Every science is potentially deducible from a small number of pri- 
 mary truths. . . Thus, for example, a being of sufficient knowledge 
 might construct a complete theory of human nature, of which every 
 proposition would be either self-evident or rigorously deducible from 
 self-evident axioms. Such propositions would take the form of 
 laws in the scientific, not in the moral, sense ; the copula would be 
 ' is,' not ' ought ' ; the general formula would be ' all men do so and so, 
 not ' thou shalt do so and so.' . . . The language which he uses about 
 the moral law is, in reality, applicable to the scientific law alone. It 
 might be said with plausibility . . . that the proposition ' all men are 
 mortal ' is capable of being deductively proved by inferences from 
 some self-evident axioms. A denial of. it would, therefore, involve 
 a contradiction. But the proposition ' Thou shalt not kill ' is a 
 threat, not a statement of a truth ; and Clarke's attempt to bring 
 it under the same category involves a confusion fatal to the whole 
 theory. It is, in fact, a confusion between the art and the science of 
 human conduct" I quote this passage, because it not only brings out 
 what seem* to be the error of Clarke, in confounding natural and
 
 I 8.] VARIOUS CONCEPTIONS OF MORAL LAW. 177 
 
 ' is, " in any such sense as this, can never yield an 
 Bought" Similar doctrines to that of Clarke have 
 frequently been put forward, even in quite recent times ; * 
 but they all seem to labour under the same fatal de- 
 fect. 
 
 8. THE MORAL SENSE. If the laws of nature or the 
 laws of God are to yield us moral principles, it must be 
 because they in some way appeal to our own conscious- 
 ness, because we in some way feel that obedience to 
 them or observance of them serves to realise an ideal 
 which we bring with us. Now an obvious way of 
 making the connection between such external prin- 
 ciples and our own minds is to say that we have a 
 natural feeling which leads us to approve some things 
 and disapprove of others. We are thus led to the con- 
 ception of the moral sense. 
 
 This point of view, like most others in Ethics, has 
 had a long history. It connects itself essentially with 
 the Greek view of the identity between the Beautiful 
 and the Good. In Greek r<J xativ was used habitually 
 either for beauty or for moral excellence. Thus, the 
 Stoic maxim, 8n IU&VQV dyaff^v rd xcdtv, means that only 
 the beautiful (/'. e. the morally excellent) is good. A 
 similar view has frequently appeared in modern times. 
 Thus, the philosopher Herbart insisted strongly on the 
 identity of Goodness with Beauty, and definitely treated 
 
 moral law, but also illustrates the other error of confounding moral 
 law with the command of a superior. Thou shall not kill,' as a moral, 
 law, is not a threat, but the statement of a normative principle. 
 Similarly, there seems to be an error in representing Ethics as the 
 nri of conduct 
 
 i The theory of James Hinton, for instance, o far as he had a 
 theory seems to bear a considerable resemblance to that of Clark* 
 See an interesting account of his ideas in Mind, old series, VoL IX. 
 Eth. 13
 
 178 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. in., PT. it. 
 
 Ethics as a part of ./Esthetics. f The conception of a 
 kind of feeling, like aesthetic feeling, accompanying the 
 moral judgment, comes out also in some of the writers 
 of the school known as the Cambridge Platonists, 
 especially in Henry More. But the writers who are 
 specially known as the representatives of the idea of a 
 moral sense are Shaftesbury and Hutcheson. * " Should 
 one," says Shaftesbury,' "who had the countenance of 
 a gentleman, ask me, 'Why I would avoid being nasty, 
 when nobody was present ? ' In the first place I should 
 be fully satisfied that he himself was a very nasty gen- 
 tleman who could ask this question ; and that it would 
 be a hard matter for me to make him even conceive 
 what true cleanliness was. However, I might, notwith- 
 
 1 See, for instance, his Science of Education, recently translated 
 by Mr. and Mrs. Felkin ; and cf. Bosanquet's History of ^Esthetics, p. 
 3691 We may also refer, in this connection, to the saving of Ruskin, 
 "Taste is not only a part and an index of morality; it is the only 
 morality. The first and last and closest trial question to any living 
 creature is, ' What do you like ? Tell me what you like, and I will 
 tell you what you are. 1 " (Sesame and Lilies). See also Adam 
 Smith's Theory of the Moral Sentiments, Part IV., sect II., and cf. the 
 saying of Aristotle quoted above, Book I., chap, iii., 5. 
 
 * Shaftesbury was the founder of this school, and its subsequent 
 development was due chiefly to Hutcheson. See Sidgwick's History 
 of Ethics, p. 1891 It is scarcely necessary to point out that the meaning 
 of the term " sense," as here used, is different from that in which we 
 speak of the sense of taste, touch, sight, &c. The latter " senses " 
 are concerned simply with the apprehension of particular qualities 
 of objects ; whereas the moral sense or the sense of beauty passes 
 judgment on such qualities. The meaning of calling it a moral sense 
 is merely to imply that it is an intuitive faculty of judgment Simi- 
 larly, we might say that the judgments of the epicure or of the tea- 
 taster rest upon a sense ; but it is not on the mere " sense of taste " 
 that such judgments rest, since they involve a standard as well as an 
 apprehension. 
 
 Characteristics, "An Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Humour.* 
 Part IIL. sect iv.
 
 8.] VARIOUS CONCEPTIONS OF MORAL LAW. 179 
 
 standing this, be contented to give him a slight answer, 
 and say, ''Twas because I had a nose.' Should he 
 trouble me further, and ask, 'What if I had a cold? 
 Or what if naturally I had no such nice smell ? ' I 
 might answer perhaps, ' That I cared as little to see 
 myself nasty, as that others should see me in that con- 
 dition.' But what if it were in the dark? Why even 
 then, though I had neither nose nor eyes, my sense 
 of the matter would still be the same ; my nature 
 would rise at the thought of what was sordid ; or if it 
 did not, I should have a wretched nature indeed, and 
 hate myself for a beast. Honour myself I never could ; 
 whilst I had no better sense of what, in reality, I owed 
 myself, and what became me, as a human creature." 
 "Much in the same manner," he goes on, "have I 
 heard it asked, Why should a man be honest in the 
 dark j 3 What a man must be to ask this question, I 
 won't say." And so on. Shaftesbury is thus led to 
 conceive that to be virtuous is to be a 'virtuoso,' that 
 a cultivated taste is our only guide. " To philosophise 
 in a just signification is but to carry good breeding a 
 step higher." 
 
 The plausibility of this point of view arises chiefly 
 from the fact that in a well-developed character the 
 habit of obedience to the moral law becomes a second 
 nature, so that the choice of the right and the avoidance 
 of the wrong passes almost into a kind of instinct 
 From this point of view it may quite rightly be main- 
 tained that the moral sense is a kind of taste. 1 But 
 
 1 Using the term "taste," of course, in that secondary sense in 
 which we speak of " good taste." It is not a taste like that which 
 simply apprehends savour, but a taste like that of the tea-taster (who, 
 by the by, is properly tez-smeller), who judges the qualities of teas 
 by a kind of intuitive perception.
 
 i8o ETHICS. [BK. 11., CH. in., PT. IL 
 
 it must be remembered that the sense of beauty, as 
 well as the sense of tightness, is capable of being 
 explained and justified. Though it is commonly said 
 that "there is no disputing about tastes," yet we do 
 habitually dispute about them, and pronounce them to 
 be right or wrong. The moral taste, then, is so far 
 quite analogous to the aesthetic taste, and it may be 
 quite correct to refer to it as a sense. 1 But since it is 
 not simply an inexplicable sense, but is capable of a 
 rational explanation, no ethical theory can be regarded 
 as thorough which simply treats it as a sense and does 
 not endeavour to explain it Moreover, what can be 
 explained can usually also be criticised. When the 
 sense of beauty, for instance, has been explained, it is 
 possible to criticise the sense of beauty as it is found 
 in particular individuals ; and to determine that the 
 aesthetic taste of some men is good, while that of others 
 is defective. Similarly, when the moral sense is ex- 
 plained, it will naturally be possible to pass judgment 
 on the moral tastes of different individuals and even of 
 
 1 In this connection it may be noted that even complex Intellect- 
 ual processes become, after long practice, scarcely distinguish- 
 able from intuitive perceptions. A man who is highly skilled in 
 any art seems to see at a glance what requires to be done on 
 any given occasion. Yet we do not postulate a sense in such 
 cases, because we know that the judgments of the expert rest in 
 reality on rational grounds (though frequently he might not be able 
 to give any clear account of the grounds of his own judgment). An 
 illustration of a similar fact may be found in "Lord Mansfield's 
 advice to a man of practical good sense, who, being appointed gov- 
 ernor of a colony, had to preside in its Court of Justice, without 
 previous judicial practice or legal education. The advice was to 
 give his decision boldly, for it would probably be right ; but never 
 to venture on assigning reasons, for they would almost infallibly be 
 wrong" (Mill's Logic, Book II., chap, iii., 3). In such a case the 
 Masons of the action arc latent ; but DO ono would doubt that reasons
 
 9-] VARIOUS CONCEPTIONS OF MORAL LAW. l8l 
 
 different ages and nations. For these reasons, then, 
 a system of ethics which simply rests content with the 
 idea of a moral sense, can scarcely be regarded as 
 satisfactory. 
 
 As a matter of fact, indeed, the moral sense was not 
 accepted either by Shaftesbury or by Hutcheson as a 
 sufficient basis for Ethics. They both sought to ex- 
 plain it as due to the nature of man as a social being. 
 They both thought that what a cultivated moral taste 
 approves is that which is beneficial to society as a 
 whole, what tends to bring about "the greatest happi- 
 ness of the greatest number. " x All that they urged was 
 that it is not necessary to reflect upon this principle, 
 since it is naturally embodied in any cultivated taste. 
 
 But, of course, in morals we want some principle 
 which will apply generally, not merely to those of cul- 
 tivated taste ; or at least we require to know definitely 
 What it is that constitutes a cultivated taste, in order 
 that it may be developed, as far as possible, in all 
 
 could be found So in the moral life the good man seems to see 
 instinctively in many cases what he ought to do, and frequently 
 could not give any reason. It is this fact that makes it appear as if 
 there were some special " moral sense " involved. But the truth is 
 that even intellectual insight depends, from this point of view, on a 
 kind of developed intuition. Everything that we really know, we 
 know by directly looking at it, rather than by arguing round about it 
 " All the thinking in the world," as Goethe said, " does not bring 
 us to thought ; we must be right by nature, so that good thoughts 
 may come to us, like free children of God, and cry ' Here we are. 1 " 
 So it is with moral perception. It depends on a developed sense 
 or intuition, but not an unintelligible sense, or one destitute of inner 
 principle. "Our instinctive knowledge," says Mach (Science of 
 Mechanics, Chap. I., sect ii.), " leads us to the principle which explains 
 that knowledge itself, and which is in its turn corroborated by the 
 existence of that knowledge." So it is with our instinctive morality: 
 iThis phrase was actually used by Hutcheson.
 
 1 82 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. in., PT. IL 
 
 mankind In this way the moral sense differs from 
 the artistic sense. A man who is deficient in the lattel 
 may be a respected member of society ; but the man 
 who lacks the former is condemned by all who have 
 it. It is this authoritativeness of the moral sense that 
 is not sufficiently brought out when it is regarded as 
 analogous to the sense of beauty. 
 
 9. THE LAW OF CONSCIENCE. Bishop Butler was 
 strongly impressed by the unsatisfactoriness of the 
 view of Shaftesbury in this respect ; and he endeavoured 
 to remedy the defect by substituting the idea of Con- 
 science for that of the moral sense. In itself this is 
 but a slight change ; but by Conscience Butler under- 
 stood something considerably different from what 
 Shaftesbury had meant by the moral sense. Butler 
 thought of human nature as an organic whole, con- 
 taining many elements, some of which are naturally 
 subordinate to others. Thus, there are in our nature 
 a number of particular passions or impulses which lead 
 us to pursue particular objects ; but all these are na- 
 turally subordinate to Self-love, on the one hand, and 
 to Benevolence, on the other ; *'. e. it is natural for 
 us to restrain or guide our passions with a view to the 
 good of ourselves or of others. But there is a certain 
 principle in human nature which is naturally superior 
 even to Self-love or Benevolence. This is the principle 
 of reflection upon the law of Tightness ; and this is what 
 Butler understood by Conscience. He regarded this 
 principle as categorical, on account of its place in the 
 human constitution. "Thus that principle, by which 
 we survey, and either approve or disapprove our own 
 heart, temper, and actions, is not only to be considered 
 as what is in its turn to have some influence ; which
 
 10.] VARIOUS CONCEPTIONS OF MORAL LAW. 183 
 
 may be said of every passion, of the lowest appetites : 
 but likewise as being superior ; as from its very nature 
 manifestly claiming superiority over all others ; inso- 
 much that you cannot form a notion of this faculty, 
 conscience, without taking in judgment, direction, 
 superintendency. This is a constituent part of the idea, 
 that is, of the faculty itself : and to preside and govern, 
 from the very economy and constitution of man,belongs 
 to it. Had it strength, as it has right, had it power, 
 as it has manifest authority, it would absolutely govern 
 the world. " x 
 
 When we ask, however, what is the nature of this 
 authoritative principle, two different views seem to 
 present themselves. According to one view, it is 
 simply an inexplicable faculty which we find within us, 
 by which laws are laid down. According to another 
 view, it is an intelligible authority whose commands 
 can be understood by rational reflection. It is not quite 
 clear in which of these two ways Butler thought of Con- 
 science ; but among those who followed him the two 
 views began to be clearly distinguished. The former 
 view is that which is generally known as Intuitionism, 
 in the narrower sense : the other is the view of a law 
 of Reason. 
 
 10. INTUITIONISM. Intuitionism 2 may be described 
 generally as the theory that actions are right or wrong 
 
 1 Sermon II. 
 
 a From Latin, intueri, to look at The intuitionists hold that w 
 perceive the lightness or wrongness of actions by simply looking at 
 them, without needing to consider their relations to any ends out- 
 side themselves. It may be noted here that the term is generally 
 written in the longer form " Intuitionalism." But the shorter form 
 has been made current by Dr. Sidgwick, and seems more convenient
 
 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. m. f PT. n. 
 
 according to their own intrinsic nature, and not in vir- 
 tue of any ends outside themselves which they tend to 
 realise. Thus, truth-speaking would be regarded as a 
 duty, not because it is essential for social well-being, 
 or for any other extrinsic reason, but because it is right 
 in its own nature. x This theory has been held in vari- 
 ous forms, more or less philosophical in character. For 
 a full account of these forms reference must be made 
 to histories of Ethics and Philosophy.' Here it is only 
 possible to notice the leading points. 
 
 In the narrower sense of the term, Intuitionism is 
 understood to mean the doctrine which refers the judg- 
 ment upon actions to the tribunal of Conscience, under- 
 stood as a faculty which admits of no question or 
 appeal. 
 
 When conscience is thus referred to as the funda- 
 mental principle of morals, we must not under- 
 
 1 It should be observed that there is a certain ambiguity in the 
 use of the term Intuitionism. It is employed in a wider and in a 
 narrower sense. In the narrower sense it means a doctrine which 
 traces our moral judgments to some unanalysable form of perception, 
 some purely intuitive conviction of which no rational account can 
 be given. In this acceptation of the term, Kant and his forerunners, 
 Clarke, Wollaston, &cx, were not intuitionists ; for Kant at least 
 rested the moral judgment on the practical reason, not on percep- 
 tion. But in a wider sense all the writers of this class may be char- 
 acterised as intuitionists ; since they appeal to self-evident laws, 
 rather than to any conception of a good with reference to which 
 our moral actions may be regarded as means. 
 
 For the best modern statement of the intuitionist doctrine, the 
 student should consult Martineau's Types of Ethical Theory, Part II. 
 An excellent criticism of intuitionism will be found in Sidgwick's 
 Methods of Ethics, Book I., chaps, viii. and ix., and Book III. For 
 the history of the subject, see Sidgwick's History of Ethics, especially 
 pp. 224236. Also pp. 170204. Calderwood's Handbook of Moral 
 Philosophy may also be referred to.
 
 10.] VARIOUS CONCEPTIONS OF MORAL LAW. 185 
 
 stand it to mean the conscience of this or that indi- 
 vidual. The conscience of any particular individual is 
 simply the consciousness of the harmony or dishar- 
 mony of his action with his own standard of right : and 
 if this standard is defective, the same defect will appear 
 in the conscience. His conscience may be, in Mr. 
 Ruskin's phrase, "The conscience of an ass." The 
 man who does not act conscientiously certainly acts 
 wrongly : he does not conform even to his own stand- 
 ard of Tightness. But a man may act conscientiously 
 and yet act wrongly, on account of some imperfection 
 in his standard. One who acts conscientiously in ac- 
 cordance with some defective standard is generally 
 known as a "fanatic." * 
 
 When, however, Kant says that " an erring con- 
 science is a chimera,"* or when Butler says of the 
 conscience that "if it had power, as it has manifest 
 authority, it would absolutely govern the world," or 
 when, in general, intuitionist writers refer to the con- 
 science as the supreme principle of morals, what they 
 mean by conscience is rather what may be called the 
 universal conscience. They mean that ultimate recog- 
 nition of the Tightness and wrongness of actions, which 
 is latent in all men, but which in some men is more 
 fully developed than in others. The principles by 
 which this recognition is made are sometimes referred 
 to as principles of Common Sense, because they are 
 
 1 Cf. above, Book I., chap, vl, 6. It is there explained that we 
 judge the action to be wrong because it is not done from the best 
 motive. It may, however, appear to the agent to be the best See 
 also below, Book III., chap, ii., 14. 
 
 * See the Preface to his Metaphysical Elements of Ethics (Abbott's 
 translation), pp. 311 and 321.
 
 1 86 ETHICS. [BK. IL, CH. IIL, PT. n. 
 
 supposed to be common or universal throughout the 
 whole human race. 1 
 
 The principles of common sense have been referred 
 to by some writers 3 as if they were simply certain 
 moral truths which are found unaccountably in the 
 consciousness of mankind. Against this view there is 
 the same objection as there is against the correspond- 
 ing view with regard to intellectual truth. It conflicts 
 with a principle which is deeper than any other principle 
 of common sense can well be the principle, namely, 
 that the world must be regarded as an intelligible sys- 
 tem of which a definite account can be given before the 
 bar of reason. If this principle is a mistaken one, it is 
 hard to believe that there can be any other that has 
 a deeper claim to be regarded as of universal validity. 
 The inadequacy of conscience as a basis of morals 
 becomes further apparent when we endeavour to de- 
 termine definitely what principles are laid down by 
 
 1 It will thus be seen that there is a certain ambiguity in the use 
 of the term " conscience." There is another ambiguity, to which 
 we shall have occasion to refer by and by. Conscience is frequently, 
 perhaps even generally, understood to denote, not the principles of 
 moral judgment, but the feeling of pain which accompanies the 
 violation of moral law. When we speak of "the voice of con- 
 science," and of conscience as laying down laws, we are of course 
 not speaking of it as a mere feeling of pain, but as containing prin- 
 ciples in accordance with which we form our moral judgments. 
 The confusion which results from this ambiguity in the use of the 
 term is well brought out by Mr. Muirhead in his Elements of Ethics 
 pp. 78-9. Cf. also Porter's Elements of Moral Science, p. 246. And 
 see above, Note at end of Book I. 
 
 8 Especially Reid and the other members of the so-called Scotch 
 School See Sidgwick's History oj Ethics, pp. 226-233. Dr. Marti- 
 neau's theory is essentially a carrying out of this view. On the 
 other hand, such a book as Janet's Theory of Morals represents a 
 more rational interpretation of the intuitional principles.
 
 10.] VARIOUS CONCEPTIONS OF MORAL LAW. l8/ 
 
 it The content of conscience, even if we mean by 
 it the conscience of a people or an age, rather than 
 that of an individual, is found to vary very consider- 
 ably in different times and countries ; and even at the 
 same time and place the rules that are laid down by it 
 are of a very uncertain character. * Reflection shows, 
 moreover, that these variations are not arbitrary, but 
 have a distinct reference to the utility of actions under 
 varying conditions for the realisation of human welfare. 
 This has been well brought out in the very thorough 
 examination of Common Sense Morality which is given 
 in Dr. Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics.* From this it 
 appears that the moral sense must not be regarded as 
 a blind faculty, laying down principles for our guid- 
 ance which are not capable of any further analysis or 
 justification. On the contrary, the principles which it 
 lays down can be rationally ju:,:iQed and explained. 
 In fact, it is only by such justification and explanation 
 that we can distinguish what is permanent and reliable 
 in the decisions of conscience from what is variable 
 and untrustworthy. But when we thus draw distinc- 
 tions and pass judgment upon conscience itself, it is 
 evident that we must somehow have a conscience be- 
 hind conscience, a faculty of judgment which stands 
 above the blind law of the heart. 
 
 11. THE LAW OF REASON. The view, however, 
 which holds that there are certain universal principles 
 of moral truth in the human consciousness is not 
 necessarily pledged to regard these principles as unin- 
 
 1 See Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book I., 
 chap, iil, and Spencer's Principles of Ethics, Part II. 
 
 3 See especially Book III., chap, xi., for a summary of Dr. Sidg- 
 wick's carefully reasoned conclusions on this point
 
 1 88 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. in., PT. n. 
 
 telHgible. Just as Kant held that there are certain 
 principles of intellectual truth what he called categories 
 which belong to the nature of all intelligent beings 
 as such, so it may be held also that there are certain 
 universal principles of moral truth. And just as the 
 categories of our intellectual life may be deduced from 
 the very nature of thought, so also the principles of our 
 moral life may be capable of a rational deduction. 
 There may be principles of our moral life which are as 
 obvious to us, when we reflect upon them, as that 2 -{- 
 2 = 4, or that every event must have a cause ; and yet 
 it may be possible, as in these latter cases it is, to see, 
 on further reflection, why it is that these principles are 
 obvious. If this were so, the intuitions of the moral con- 
 sciousness would in reality be due to a kind of rational 
 insight. They would be a manifestation of what 
 might be called moral reason. This is the view of the 
 deeper intuitionists, of whom Clarke may be taken as a 
 type ; * for the law of reason, in this sense, is scarcely 
 distinguishable from what was referred to above as the 
 law of nature. The Stoics, and most other writers who 
 have referred to a law of nature, have also described it 
 as the law of reason nature being nearly always con- 
 ceived by them as in some sense, a rational system.' 
 
 1 See Sidgwick's History of Ethics, pp. 179184. A similar view 
 seems to be represented by Janet in his Theory of Morals, Book III., 
 chap. iv. Janet holds that, in spite of the apparent diversities of 
 moral sentiment in different peoples brought out by such writers as 
 Locke and Spencer, there are yet certain latent principles which are 
 the same in all men, and to which a final appeal may be made. 
 This view seems not inconsistent with the recognition that particular 
 individuals and races may have a very imperfect apprehension of 
 the ultimate principles involved in their moral judgments. 
 
 * When the law of nature is thus conceived, as a principle of reason, 
 it comes to be thought of as normative.
 
 II.] VARIOUS CONCEPTIONS OF MORAL LAW. 189 
 
 
 
 VVhen, however, the unsatisfactoriness of basing moral 
 principles on a law of nature has become apparent, 
 writers of this type are naturally led to lay more and 
 more emphasis on the fact that it is in reality a law 
 of reason with which we are concerned. Ethics thus 
 comes to be conceived after the analogy of Logic, just 
 as the moral sense school conceived it on the analogy 
 of ^Esthetics. Wollaston, a disciple of Clarke, repre- 
 sents this tendency in its most extreme form. " Moral 
 evil, according to Wollaston, is the practical denial of 
 a true position, and moral good the affirmation of it 
 To steal is wrong because it is to deny that the thing 
 stolen is what it is, the property of another. Every 
 right action is the affirmation of a truth ; every wrong 
 action is the denial of a truth." 1 "Thirty years of 
 profound meditation," says Stephen, 3 " had convinced 
 Wollaston that the reason why a man should abstain from 
 breaking his wife's head was, that it was a way of deny- 
 ing that she was his wife. All sin, in other words, was 
 lying." If a man runs another through the body, it is 
 simply a pointed way of denying that he is a man and 
 a brother ; and the evil lies not in the pointedness but 
 in the error. " It is worse than a crime it is a blunder. " 
 In all this the sophistry is obvious. A bad action is 
 inconsistent; but it is not inconsistent with fact : it is in- 
 consistent with an ideal the ideal, for instance, which 
 is involved in the relationship between man and man. 3 
 
 1 Le Rossignol's Ethical Philosophy of Samuel Clarke, p. 87. 
 
 * English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, voL L, p. 1301 
 
 What is said above refers specially to the views of Clarke and 
 Wollaston. With Locke Ethics is conceived more definitely on the 
 analogy of mathematics. He thinks of these as the two demonstra- 
 tive sciences, starting with nominal definitions and proceeding by 
 the law of self -consistency. This seems to involve some iiiisconcop-
 
 190 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. III., PT. Ill 
 
 A more ingenious and suggestive form of this 
 doctrine was put forward by Kant, who argued that 
 bad actions are essentially inconsistent with them- 
 selves ; or at least that there is an inconsistency in the 
 principle upon which they proceed. His view on this 
 point is so important that we must examine it at some 
 length. 
 
 PART III. THE DOCTRINE OF KANT. 
 
 12. KANT'S VIEW OF THE MORAL REASON. Kant argued 
 that, since the moral imperative is categorical, it cannot 
 be derived from the consideration of any end outside of 
 the will of the individual. For every external end is 
 empirical, and could give rise only to a hypothetical 
 imperative. We should only be entitled to say that, j/ 
 we seek that end, we are bound to act in a particular 
 way, with a view to its attainment. Kant held, there- 
 fore, that the absolute imperative of duty has no refer- 
 ence to any external ends to which the will is directed, 
 but simply to the right direction of the will itself. 
 "There is nothing good but the good will;" and this is 
 good in itself, not with reference to any external facts. 
 It must have its law entirely within itself. If the im- 
 perative which it involves were dependent on any of 
 the facts of experience, which are by their nature con- 
 tingent, it would itself be contingent, and could not be 
 an absolute law. It follows from this that the moral 
 law cannot have any particular content It cannot tell 
 
 lion of the nature both of mathematics and of morals. Geometry 
 does not start simply with nominal definitions. It starts with the 
 conception of space. Similarly, Ethics does not start with arbitrary 
 definitions of justice, &c., but with the conception of the concrete 
 human ideal This is a subject, however, into which we cannot enter 
 With any fulness here*
 
 II.] THE DOCTRINE OF KANT. IQI 
 
 us any particular things that we are to do or to abstain 
 from doing ; because all particular things have in them 
 an empirical and contingent element, and the moral 
 law can have no reference to any such element. 
 Hence the moral law cannot tell us what the matter or 
 content of our actions ought to be : it can only instruct 
 us with regard to inform. But a pure form, without 
 any matter, must be simply the form of law in general. 
 That is to say, the moral law can tell us nothing more 
 than that we are to act in a way that is conformable to 
 law. And this means simply that our actions must 
 have a certain self-consistency t. e. that the principles 
 on which we act must be principles that we can adopt 
 throughout the whole of our lives, and that we can 
 apply to the lives of others. Kant is thus led to give 
 as the content of the categorical imperative this 
 formula "Act only on that maxim (or principle) 
 which thou canst at the same time will to become a 
 universal law. " ' 
 
 He illustrates the application of this formula by 
 taking such a case as that of breaking promises. It is 
 wrong to break a promise, because the breach of a 
 promise is a kind of action which could not be univer- 
 salised. If it were a universal rule that every one 
 were to break his promise, whenever he felt inclined, 
 no one would place any reliance on promises. Prom- 
 ises, in fact, would cease to be made. And of course, 
 if they were not made, they could not be broken. 
 Hence it would be impossible for every one to break 
 his promise. And since it is impossible for every one, 
 it must be wrong for any one. The essence of wrong- 
 doing consists in making an exception. 
 
 1 Mctaphvsic of Morals- section IL
 
 192 ETHICS. [BK. u., CH. in., PT. IIL 
 
 Similarly, it may easily be shown that we could not, 
 without a certain absurdity, have universal suicide, or 
 universal stealing, or even universal indifference to the 
 misfortunes of others. Since, then, we cannot really 
 will that such acts should be done by every one, we 
 have no right to will that we ourselves should do 
 them. In fact, the moral law is Act only in suoh a 
 way as you could will that every one else should act 
 under the same general conditions. 
 
 13. CRITICISM OF KANT, (i) Formalism. It seems 
 clear that the principle laid down by Kant affords in 
 many cases a safe negative guide in conduct. If we 
 cannot will that all men should, under like conditions, 
 act as we are doing, we may generally be sure that 
 we are acting wrongly. When, however, we en- 
 deavour to extract positive guidance from the formula 
 when we try to ascertain, by means of it, not merely 
 what we should abstain from doing, but what we 
 should do it begins to appear that it is merely a 
 formal principle," from which no definite matter can 
 be derived ; and further consideration may lead us to 
 see that it cannot even give us quite satisfactory 
 negative guidance. 
 
 We must first observe, however, what was the exact 
 
 * This is one of the most difficult points to prove in at all a satis- 
 factory way. Kant's argument is ingenious, but hardly convincing. 
 
 * See the criticisms on Kant in Mill's Utilitarianism, chap. L, p. 5, 
 Bradley's Ethical Studies, pp. 139 sqq., Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, 
 pp. 78S2, Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, pp. 130-135, Adamson's 
 Philosophy of Kant, pp. 110-20, &c. For a full discussion of Kant's 
 doctrine on this point, see Caird's Critical Philosophy of Kant, Book 
 IL, chap. II Mr. Abbott, in his translation of Kant's TJteory of Ethics, 
 pp. xlix Iv, partly defends Kant's point of view, but does not succeed 
 hi ahowiog that it leads to results that are practically helpful.
 
 1 3.] THE DOCTRINE OF KANT. 193 
 
 meaning that Kant put upon his principle. It is evident 
 that it might be interpreted in two very different ways. 
 It might be taken to refer to general species of con- 
 duct, or it might be taken to refer to particular acfs, 
 with all the limitations of time, place, and circumstance. 
 It was in the former sense that the principle was under- 
 stood by Kant ; * but it is well to bear in mind that 
 there is also a possibility of the latter interpretation. 
 The difference between the two might be illustrated, 
 for instance, in the case of stealing. According to the 
 former interpretation, stealing must in all cases be 
 condemned, because its principle cannot be univer- 
 salised. According to the latter interpretation, it would 
 be necessary, in each particular instance in which 
 there is a temptation to steal, to consider whether it is 
 possible to will that every human being should steal, 
 when placed under precisely similar conditions. The 
 former interpretation would evidently give us a very 
 strict view of duty, while the latter might easily give 
 us a very lax one. 
 
 Now if we accept, as Kant does, the former of these 
 two interpretations, it seems clear that the principle is 
 a purely formal one, from which the particular matter 
 of conduct cannot be extracted. In order to apply it 
 at all, we must presuppose a certain given material.* 
 
 1 The reason why Kant took this view is, that he thought that a 
 man ought not only to be able to will that the principle of his action 
 should be universally adopted, but that it should be made into a law 
 of nature. To discuss the ground on which he held this opinion, 
 would carry us beyond the scope of this manual 
 
 * Kant was partly aware of this, and in his later treatment of the 
 
 subject seeks to derive the positive part of moral obligation from the 
 
 consideration of the twofold end our own Perfection and the Hap. 
 
 piaeas of others and also from the general principle* of Juriipr* 
 
 Etb. x ,
 
 194 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. III., PT. III. 
 
 Thus, In order to show that stealing leads to self-con- 
 tradiction, we must presuppose the existence of pro- 
 perty. It is inconsistent to take the property of another, 
 if we recognise the legitimacy of private property ; but 
 if any one denies this, there is no inconsistency in his 
 acting accordingly. In order to apply Kant's principle, 
 therefore, it is necessary first to know what presuppo- 
 sitions we are entitled to make. Otherwise, there is 
 scarcely any action which might not be shown to lead 
 to inconsistency. For instance, the relief of distress, 
 the effort after the moral improvement of society, and 
 the like, might be said to lead to inconsistency ; for if 
 every one were engaged in these actions, it would be 
 unnecessary for any one to engage in them. They 
 are necessary only because they are neglected. The 
 only difference between these cases and that of theft 
 or of promise-breaking, is that in the one set of cases 
 the abolition of the activity would lead to what is 
 regarded as a desirable result the cessation of distress 
 or immorality ; while in the other set of cases it would 
 lead to what is regarded as an undesirable result the 
 cessation of property or of promises. But when we 
 ask why the one result is to be regarded as desirable 
 and the other as undesirable, there is no answer from 
 the Kantian point of view. All that the Kantian prin- 
 ciple enables us to say is that, assuming certain kinds 
 
 dence. See Abbott, pp. 296 3oz Thus, the positive side of duty 
 would be derived largely from utilitarian considerations, while the 
 moral reason would simply urge us to be self-consistent Kant's 
 view thus approximated to that developed in recent times by Dr. 
 Sidgwick. See below, chap. iv. But on this point, as on many 
 others, Kant kept the different sides of his theory in separate com- 
 partments of his mind, and never really brought them together 
 Gf, Caird'3 Critical Philosophy of Kant, Book II., chaps, vi. and vii
 
 1 3.] THE DOCTRINE OF KANT. 195 
 
 of conduct to be in general right, we must not make 
 exceptions on our own behalf. 
 
 If, on the other hand, we were to adopt the second 
 of the two possible interpretations of the principle of 
 consistency, it would not be possible to derive from it 
 even this very moderate amount of instruction. For 
 to say that we are always to act in such a way that 
 we could will that all other human beings, under 
 exactly the same conditions, should act similarly, is 
 merely to say that we are to act in a way that we 
 approve. Whenever a man approves of his own course 
 of action, he ipso facto wills that any one else in like 
 conditions should do likewise. Consequently, from 
 this principle no rule of conduct whatever can be 
 derived. It simply throws us back upon the morality 
 of common sense. 1 
 
 The pure will of Kant, being thus entirely formal, 
 and destitute of particular content, has been well 
 described by Jacobi as a "will that wills nothing."* 
 
 14. CRITICISM OF KANT (continued^). (2) Stringency. 
 Not only is the Kantian principle open to the charge 
 of being purely formal, it has also the defect of giving 
 rise to a code of morals of a much stricter character 
 than that which the moral sense of the best men * 
 seems to demand. Of course this cannot be regarded 
 as a fatal criticism ; for it may be that that moral sense 
 
 1 Or upon utilitarian considerations. See preceding note. It may 
 be remarked that this difficulty in Kant arises from the dualism of 
 his philosophical point of view. 
 
 * See Caird's Critical Philosophy of Kant, vol. ii., p. 216, note. 
 
 * Our English moralists are fond of referring to the opinions of 
 " the plain man." But it depends a good deal on the character of 
 " the plain man " whether hia opinions on moral questions are worth 
 considering
 
 196 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. in., PT. in 
 
 is deficient. 1 Still on the whole any conflict with that 
 sense must be regarded as a primd facie presumption 
 against an ethical system in which it occurs ; and, 
 along with other criticisms, may help to overthrow 
 it. Now there are two distinct ways in which the 
 Kantian system appears to be much too rigorous. 
 
 (a) In the first place, according to the Kantian view 
 no conduct can be regarded as truly virtuous which 
 rests on feeling. Conduct is right only in so far as it 
 is dictated by the moral reason ; and the moral reason 
 is a purely formal principle, which has no connection 
 with any of the feelings or passions of human nat- 
 ure. But much of the conduct that men commonly 
 praise, springs rather from feeling than from any direct 
 application of reason. 1 This has been strikingly 
 expressed by Wordsworth in his Ode to Duty 
 
 " There are who ask not if thine eye 
 Be on them ; who, in love and truth. 
 Where no misgiving is, rely 
 Upon the genial sense of youth : 
 
 Glad hearts I without reproach or blot ; 
 
 Who do thy work, and know it not* 3 
 
 l We shall see later (chap, vi.) that few ethical writers are pre- 
 pared to go against the developed moral sense of mankind ; and, in 
 particular, it is certain that Kant himself was not 
 
 * Kant's point of view might be illustrated by the famous declara- 
 tion of Sir T. Browne in his Religio Medici : " I give no alms to 
 satisfy the hunger of my brother, but to fulfil and accomplish the will 
 and command of my God." Contrast this attitude with that of the 
 philanthropist who is actuated simply by love of those whom he 
 seeks to benefit, and it is at once evident, even to the plainest com- 
 mon sense, that the latter is immeasurably the higher of the two. 
 Indeed, it would scarcely be a paradox to say that, in such cases, the 
 more purely a man is guided by love, and the less conscious he is- 
 of performing a duty, the better his action is. But see next note. 
 
 Schiller has an even more emphatic utterance on the same point 
 in his poem Der Genius, beginning, " Must I distrust my impulse ?'
 
 14..] THE DOCTRINE OF KANT. 197 
 
 Kant, resting duty upon a formal principle of reason, 
 does not recognise the possibility of such an attitude 
 as this. This defect was early perceived by the poet 
 Schiller, an ardent student of the Kantian system, who 
 expressed his dissatisfaction in the form of an epigram. 
 He supposes an ethical inquirer to bring the following 
 difficulty before a Kantian philosopher 
 
 * Willingly serve I my friends, but I do it, alas ! with affection. 
 Hence I am plagued with the doubt, virtue I have not attained" 
 
 And he represents him as receiving the following an- 
 swer 
 
 " This is your only resource, you must stubbornly seek to abhor them. 
 Then you can do with disgust that which the law may enjoin." 
 
 Of course this is a gross exaggeration of Kant's posi- 
 tion ; for he would not demand the presence of abhor- 
 rence, nor even the absence of affection. Still, it is 
 true that he did not recognise the possibility of the 
 performance of duty from feeling as contrasted with 
 
 and ending, " What thou pleasest to do, is thy law." His criticism 
 is more philosophically expressed in the treatise, Ueber Anmuthund 
 Wurdc, where he says, among other things, that " Man not only may 
 but should bring pleasure and duty into relation to one another ; he 
 should obey his reason with joy." Of course, it would be easy to 
 carry all this to the opposite extreme from that represented by Kant ; 
 and perhaps Kant's is the less dangerous extreme of the two. The 
 over-indulgent parent, for instance, cannot be justified by a mere 
 appeal to an impulse of affection. All that we are entitled to say is 
 that a man will often be led to the performance of duty by affection 
 far more effectively than by the consciousness of law, and that duty 
 so performed does not thereby cease to be duty ; and further, that 
 the highest forms of duty, involving love, are not compatible with 
 the absence of affection, and cannot be satisfactorily done from 
 mere respect for law. C/. Janet's Theory of Morals, book III., chap. 
 V. ; and see above, Book I., chap, iii., $
 
 198 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. in., PT, in. 
 
 the performance of it from the mere sense of duty 
 given by the moral reason. 
 
 () Another respect in which the rigour of Kant's 
 point of view appears, is this, that he permits of no 
 exceptions to his moral imperatives. Now the moral 
 sense of the best men seems to say that there is no 
 commandment, however sacred (unless it be the com- 
 mandment of love), that does not under certain cir- 
 cumstances release its claims. This objection was 
 very forcibly put by Jacobi in an indignant protest 
 against the Kantian system, which he addressed to 
 Fichte. 1 "Yes," he exclaims, "I am the Atheist, the 
 Godless one, who, in spite of the will that wills no- 
 thing, am ready to lie as the dying Desdemona lied ; 
 to lie and deceive like Pylades, when he pretended to 
 be Orestes ; to murder like Timoleon ; to break law 
 and oath like Epaminondas, like John de Witt; to 
 commit suicide with Otho and sacrilege with David, 
 yea, to rub the ears of corn on the Sabbath day, merely 
 
 i It may be observed that Fichte himself, though a disciple of 
 Kant, laid stress chiefly on the Kantian dictum that "an erring 
 conscience is a chimera," and regarded the command to " follow 
 conscience " as the supreme moral principle. He regarded con- 
 science, moreover, not as a principle which lays down merely 
 formal imperatives, but rather as one which bids us advance along 
 the line of rational development Fichte was thus rather a repre- 
 sentative of the school of idealistic evolution, referred to below in 
 chap. v. For this reason, Janet remarks (Theory of Morals, p. 264) 
 that Jacobi ought to have regarded Fichte as essentially in agree- 
 ment with himself. For Jacobi also appealed to the heart or moral 
 sense of the individual. But surely what Fichte meant by the 
 " conscience " was a rational and universal principle of guidance, 
 very different from a mere heart or moral sense. Cf. Adamson's 
 Fichte, pp. 193 sqq. ; Schwegler's History of Philosophy, pp. 273-4 } 
 Erdmann's History of Philosophy, voL ii., pp, 5&fr-i&
 
 I4] THE DOCTRINE OF KANT. 199 
 
 because I am hungry, and because the law is made for 
 the sake of man and not man for the sake of the law. I 
 am that Godless one, and I deride the philosophy that 
 calls me Godless for such reasons, both it and its 
 Supreme Being- ; for with the holiest certitude that I 
 have in me, I know that the prerogative of pardon in 
 reference to such transgressions of the letter of the 
 absolute law of reason, is the characteristic royal right 
 of man, the seal of his dignity and of his divine 
 nature." Jacobi held, therefore, that man is not called 
 upon to act "in blind obedience to the law." He is 
 entitled to appeal from pure reason to the heart, which 
 is indeed the only "faculty of ideas that are not 
 empty." "This heart," he says, "the Transcendental 
 Philosophy will not be allowed to tear out of my 
 breast, in order to set a pure impulse of Egoism in its 
 place. I am not one to allow myself to be freed from 
 the dependence of love, in order to have my blessed- 
 ness in pride alone." 
 
 To what extent this view of Jacobi is justifiable, will 
 probably become more apparent as we proceed. In 
 reality, it is quite as one-sided as the view of Kant to 
 which it is opposed. It calls attention, however, to 
 the undue rigour of Kant's principle, in admitting of 
 no exceptions to his moral imperatives. But indeed, 
 even apart from such considerations as Jacobi has ad- 
 duced, it must be tolerably apparent that the rigour of 
 the Kantian system, in excluding all exceptions, gver- 
 ehoots the mark. For many actions in ordinary life 
 are right simply because they are exceptions. Many 
 instances of heroic self-sacrifice would be unjustifiable 
 if every one were to perform them. When it is right 
 for a man to devote his life to a great cause, it is
 
 200 ETHICS. [BK. II., GH. III., PT. III. 
 
 usually- right just because it may be assumed that no 
 one else will do it. Or take the case of celibacy. 1 
 For every one to abstain from marriage would be in- 
 consistent with the continuance of the human race 
 on earth ; consequently, any one who abstained from 
 marriage for the sake of some benefit to posterity would, 
 from Kant's point of view, be acting inconsistently ; 
 yet it seems clear that it is not the duty of every one 
 to marry, and even that it is the duty of some to 
 abstain, and to abstain, too, for the sake of posterity. 
 
 It appears, then, that the Kantian principle, inter- 
 preted in this way, is much too stringent. On the 
 other hand, if we were to accept the other interpreta- 
 tion, it would be too lax. For it would then admit of 
 every conceivable exception that we could will to be 
 universally allowed under precisely similar conditions; 
 and this would include everything that human beings 
 do,* except when they are consciously doing what they 
 know cannot be justified by any rational plea. 
 
 15. REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE KANTIAN PRINCIPLE. 
 We must not, however, conclude from this that the 
 Kantian principle is to be entirely rejected. There is 
 a sense in which it is a quite complete criterion of the 
 
 i Cf. Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics, Book IV., chap, v., $ 3 ; and 
 Abbott's translation of Kant's Theory of Ethics, pp. liil, sqq. The 
 student should observe carefully where the inconsistency comes in 
 here viz. in the principle (or maxim) itself, not in its mere results. 
 
 * For instance, a man might be dishonest in business, and justify 
 himself by saying that the principle on which he acted was, that a 
 shrewd man is entitled to overreach a careless one. If he had per- 
 fect confidence in his own shrewdness, he might be quite willing 
 that this principle should be universally carried out; and at the 
 same time he might uphold the general principle of respect fof 
 the rights of others, subject only to this particular limitation.
 
 1 5.] THE DOCTRINE OF KANT. 2OI 
 
 lightness of an action to ask whether it can be consist- 
 ently carried out. Our moral action is in this respect 
 exactly similar to our intellectual life. An error can- 
 not be consistently carried out, and neither can a sin. 
 But in both cases alike the test is not that of mere 
 formal consistency. We may take up an erroneous 
 idea and hold consistently to it, so long as we confine 
 ourselves to that particular idea. The inconsistency 
 comes in only when we try to fit the erroneous idea 
 into the scheme of the world as a whole. It is with 
 that scheme that error is inconsistent. In like manner 
 in our moral life we may take up a false principle of 
 action, and we may carry it out consistently, and even 
 will that all others should act in accordance with it, 
 so long as we confine our attention to that particular 
 action and its immediate consequences. But so soon 
 as we go beyond this, and consider its bearing on the 
 whole scheme of life,' it becomes apparent that we 
 could not will that it should be universalised. The 
 reason is, not that the action is inconsistent with itself, 
 but rather that it is inconsistent with the selfi. e. with 
 the unity of our lives as a systematic whole. 3 But 
 then we have at once to ask How are we to know 
 
 1 How this scheme of life is to be conceived, is a question for 
 future consideration. We shall see, at a later stage, that life has to 
 be thought of as a growth or development Hence it can never 
 stand before us as a completed scheme ; and that with which we 
 have to be consistent is rather the idea of progress. But, as the 
 novelists say, " we are anticipating." 
 
 1 It skould be observed that Kant to some extent advanced towards 
 the point of view here indicated ; especially by his conception of 
 Humanity as an absolute end, and still more by the pregnant idea 
 of all rational beings as constituting a Kingdom of ends. Metaphysic 
 oj Morals, Sect II. (Abbott's translation, pp. 4659). But the pen 
 i*tent dualism of KaaL's system prevented him from recognising
 
 202 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. III., PT. Ill 
 
 what is and what is not consistent with this unity? 
 What can we, and what can we not, desire to see 
 universally carried out ? This question cannot be 
 answered by any mere consideration of formal con- 
 sistency. We must inquire into the nature of out 
 desires f. e. we must introduce matter as well as form. 
 We must ask, in other words, what is the nature of the 
 self with which we have to be consistent. 
 
 the full significance of the advance which he had thus suggested ; 
 and his principle remained formal after all Cf. Caird's Critical 
 Philosophy of Kant, vol. ii., pp. 218 226. For a more recent criticism 
 of Kant's ethical position, see Simmel's Einlcitung in die Moral- 
 urissensckaft, VoL II., chap. v.
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF KANT. 
 
 NOTE ox KANT. 
 
 Kant's view is rightly characterised by Bradley (Ethical Studies, 
 Essay I V. ) as that of " Duty for Duty's Sake," 1 and is contrasted with 
 the utilitarian view (Essay III.), which is described as that of 
 " Pleasure for Pleasure's Sake." Professor Dewey, in like manner, 
 describes the Kantian system (Outlines of Ethics, p. 78) as furnishing 
 us with merely "Formal Ethics," and as being a "theory which 
 attempts to find the good not only in the will itself, but in the will 
 irrespective of any end to be reached by the will." Mr. Muirhead 
 (Elements of Ethics, p. .112 sqq.) has also described the Kantian 
 theory in similar terms, referring both to Bradley and to Dewey ; 
 but he has carried Bradley's antithesis between the Kantian Ethics 
 and utilitarianism to a somewhat extreme point, even going so far 
 as to characterise the Kantian view of the supreme good by means 
 of the heading, " The End as Self-Sacrifice." This appears to me to 
 be an exaggeration. Kant considered that we must do our duty out 
 of pure respect for the law of reason, and not from any anticipation 
 of pleasure ; but he nowhere, so far as I am aware, suggests that 
 there is any merit in the absence of pleasure. On the contrary, 
 though he does not regard happiness as the direct end at which the 
 virtuous man is to aim, he yet believes that, in any complete account 
 of the supreme human good, happiness must be included as well as 
 virtue though in subordination to virtue. Indeed, he even con- 
 sidered that, unless we had grounds for believing that the two 
 elements virtue and happiness are ultimately to be found united, 
 the very foundation of morality would be destroyed. Thus he says, 
 " In the summunt bonum which is practical for us, /. e. to be realised 
 by our will, virtue and happiness are thought as necessarily com- 
 bined, so that the one cannot be assumed by pure practical reason 
 without the other also being attached to it Now this combination 
 (like every other) is either analytical or synthetical. It has been 
 shown that it cannot be analytical ; 8 it must then be synthetical, and, 
 more particularly, must be conceived as the connection of cause 
 
 1 It should be noted, however, that the account given by Mr. 
 Bradley in this chapter of the theory of " Duty for Duty's Sake " is 
 not, and is not intended to be, an exact statement of the position of 
 Kant 
 
 a Critique of Practical Reason, Part I., Book II., chap, it i. Ab- 
 bott's translation of Kant's Theory of Ethics, third edition, p. 2091 
 
 */.<. that happiness is not directly included in virtue, or virtue ta 
 happiness.
 
 9O4 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. in., PT. in. 
 
 and effect, since it concerns a practical good, i. e. one that is pos- 
 ible by means of action ; consequently either the desire of happiness 
 must be the motive to maxims of virtue, 1 or the maxim of virtue must 
 be the efficient cause of happiness. The first is absolutely impossible, 
 because (as was proved in the Analytic) maxims which place the 
 determining principle of the will in the desire of personal happiness 
 are not moral at all, and no virtue can be founded on them. But the 
 second is also impossible, because the practical connection of causes 
 and effects in the world, as the result of the determination of the 
 will, does not depend upon the moral dispositions of the will, but 
 on the knowledge of the laws of nature and the physical power to 
 use them for one's purposes ; consequently we cannot expect in the 
 world by the most punctilious observance of the moral laws any 
 necessary connection of happiness with virtue, adequate to the 
 summum bonum. Now as the promotion of this summum bonum, 
 the conception of which contains this connection, is a priori a neces- 
 sary object of our will, and inseparably attached to the moral law, 
 the impossibility of the former must prove the falsity of the latter. 
 If then the supreme good is not possible by practical rules, then the 
 moral law also which commands us to promote it is directed to vain 
 imaginary ends, and must consequently be false." 
 
 Kant's view, then, was that the supreme aim of the virtuous man 
 is simply that of conforming to this law of reason i. e., according to 
 him, the law of formal consistency. He must not pursue virtue for 
 the sake of happiness, but purely for the sake of duty. In this sense 
 Kant inculcates self-sacrifice. But he does not regard self-sacrifice 
 as the end. The end is conformity to law, obedience to reason. 
 Further, Kant considers that though the virtuous man does not aim 
 at happiness, yet the complete well-being 2 of a human being in- 
 cludes happiness as well as virtue. And apparently he thought that 
 if we had no ground for believing that the two elements are ulti- 
 mately conjoined, the ground of morality itself would be removed, 
 
 i This is what Kant denies : and it is only in this sense that he is 
 fairly to be described as an ascetic, or as one who advocates self- 
 sacrifice. 
 
 * Co mplete well-being (bonum consummatum) as distinguished from 
 supreme well-being (supremum bonum). The supreme good is vir- 
 tue : the complete good is virtue + happiness. See Critique of Prac- 
 tical Reason, Part I., Book II., chap. ii. (Abbott's translation, p. 206). 
 For a' discussion of Kant's view on this point, see Caird's Critical 
 Philosophy efKant, Book II., chap, v, (voL ii pp. 289-314.)
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF KANT. 2O$ 
 
 For morality rests on a demand of reason ; and the possibility of 
 attaining the summum bonum is also a demand of reason. If the 
 demands of reason were chimerical in the latter case, they would 
 be equally discredited in the former.! He solves the difficulty by 
 postulating the existence of God, " as the necessary condition of the 
 possibility of the summum bonum" * 
 
 From this it will be seen that Kant did not really regard self- 
 sacrifice as the end. Indeed it may be doubted whether it has ever 
 been regarded as an end by any serious school of moralists. Ben- 
 tham, indeed (at least as represented by Dumont 8 ), contrasts his 
 utilitarian theory with what he calls " the Ascetic Principle," saying 
 of the latter that " those who follow it have a horror of pleasures. 
 Everything which gratifies the senses, in their view, is odious and 
 criminal. They found morality upon privations, and virtue upon 
 the renouncement of one's self. In one word, the reverse of the 
 partisans of utility, they approve everything which tends to diminish 
 enjoyment, they blame everything which tends to augment it* 
 But this description would evidently not apply to Kant, 4 nor perhaps 
 to any school of moralists, if we except some of the extremest of the 
 Cynics. 6 Bentham himself, in the passage from which the above 
 extract is taken, does not refer to any philosophic writers, but only 
 to the Jansenists and some other theologians. Even the Stoics (to 
 whom certainly Kant bears a strong resemblance T ) did not regard 
 
 1 Observe the close resemblance between Kant's view on this 
 point and that of Butler. See Sidgwick's History of Ethics, pp. 195-7. 
 Kant, however, states the difficulty in a much more precise and pro- 
 found form than that in which it is put by Butler. Kant's attempted 
 solution, in like manner, is characterised by immeasurably greater 
 speculative depth. 
 
 Kant, loc. cit, section V. (Abbott, p. 221). 
 
 Theory of Legislation, chap. ii. See also Principles ofMoralsand 
 Legislation, chap. ii. 
 
 4 There is, indeed, a passage in the Methodology of Pure Practical 
 Reason (Abbott's translation, p. 254), in which Kant says that virtue 
 is " worth so much only because it costs so much." But the context 
 shows that his meaning is merely that the cost brings clearly to light 
 the purity of the motive. 
 
 See Sidgwick's History of Ethics, p. 33-35 
 
 For an account of the Stoics, see Sidgwick's History of Ethics, pp. 
 
 ' Cf. Caird's Critical Philosophy of Kant, voL ii. pp. 222-3, *c.
 
 206 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. III., PT. III. 
 
 the sacrifice of happiness as in itself a good. On the contrary, aa 
 Kant himself remarks,! both the Stoics and Epicureans were agreed 
 in identifying virtue with happiness : only while the Epicureans 
 held that the pursuit of happiness is virtue, the Stoics held, contrari- 
 wise, that the pursuit of virtue is happiness. 2 
 
 I have thought it desirable to dwell on this slight divergence be- 
 tween my view on this point and that stated in Mr. Muirhead's 
 Elements, not for the purpose of emphasising my disagreement, but 
 rather to bring out the fundamental identity of our views. For if the 
 reader will turn to the passage in Mr. Muirhead's book, I think he 
 will easily see that the difference between us is merely superficial. 
 Although Mr. Muirhead treats of the Kantian Ethics under the head- 
 ing " The End as Self-Sacrifice," and refers to it as illustrating the 
 ascetic principle in morals, yet his actual treatment of Kant's funda- 
 mental position does not, I think, materially differ from that suggested 
 in the present manual. I am convinced, therefore, that our diver- 
 gence on this point is little more than verbal. 
 
 It is perhaps fair to add here that a partial reply to Schiller's ob- 
 jections (referred to above, 13) was made by Kant in his treatise 
 on Religion within the Bounds of mere Reason? Kant there admits 
 that a thoroughly virtuous man will love virtuous activities, and per. 
 form them with pleasure ; but he regards this as a mere result of 
 action from the sense of duty. The man who acts from a sense of 
 duty has a feeling of pleasure gradually superinduced. This admis- 
 sion obviates the grosser forms of the criticism that has been passed 
 on Kant with regard to this point ; but it still leaves a fatal dualism 
 between the law of reason and the affections of human kindness. 
 In short, it still has the defect of emphasising the mere isolated good 
 will instead of the good character. * Cf. above, Book I., chap, iii., z 
 
 1 Critique of Practical Reason, Part I., Book II., chap, il (Abbott's 
 translation, p. 208). 
 
 8 Or at least that a certain form of happiness is an Inseparable 
 accident of the pursuit of virtue. See Sidgwick's History of Ethics, 
 pp. 83^. 
 
 ' Cf. also Metaphysical Elements of Ethics (Abbott's translation), pp t 
 
 312-13- 
 
 4 The point that it is specially important to remember is, that Kant 
 always insists that duty must not be done from inclination. He 
 never denies that it may be done with inclination. Consequently, 
 be is not properly an ascetic.
 
 I.] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 207 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 
 
 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. We thus see that the 
 idea of a categorical imperative breaks down, or at 
 least lands us in sheer emptiness. It tells us only that 
 we must judge our actions from the point of view of a 
 universal self, not from a private standpoint of our 
 own, and that we must act in a way that is consistent 
 with the idea of this higher self. All this is formal : * 
 
 1 In saying that it is merely formal, I do not of course mean to 
 deny its practical importance. In concrete life we constantly tend 
 to judge ourselves and others by standards that are not of uni- 
 versal application ; and Kant's formula is useful as a safeguard 
 against this. Perhaps the following passage from Bryce's A mcrican 
 Commonwealth (chap. Ixxv.) may serve to illustrate this danger. 
 ''All professions," he says, " have a tendency to develop a special 
 code of rules less exacting than those of the community at large. 
 As a profession holds certain things to be wrong, because contrary 
 to its etiquette, which are in themselves harmless, so it justifies other 
 things in themselves blamable. In the mercantile world, agents 
 play sad tricks on their principals in the matter of commissions, and 
 their fellow-merchants are astonished when the courts of law com- 
 pel the ill-gotten gains to be disgorged. At the English Universities, 
 everybody who took a Master of Arts degree was, until lately, 
 required to sign the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. 
 Hundreds of men signed who did not believe, and admitted that 
 they did not believe, the dogmas of this formulary ; but nobody in 
 Oxford thought the worse of them for a solemn falsehood. . . . 
 Each profession indulges in deviations from the established rules of 
 morals, but takes pains to conceal these deviations from the general 
 public, and continues to talk about itself and its traditions with an 
 air of unsullied virtue. What each profession does for itself most 
 individuals do for themselves. They judge themselves by them-
 
 2o8 ETHICS. [BK. IL, CH. iv. 
 
 we now wait for the content with which the form is to 
 be filled. We have to ask, in short, what is the nature 
 of the ideal self, and how it is constituted. 
 
 2. HIGHER AND LOWER UNIVERSES. That certain 
 forms of will are higher or better than others, may 
 almost be said to be the fundamental assumption of 
 Ethics. Now it follows from this that certain desires, 
 or certain universes of desire, are higher or better than 
 others. Thus it becomes a problem to determine why 
 it is that any desire or universe of desires should be 
 regarded as higher or better than any other. The 
 significance of this problem may perhaps be best in- 
 dicated by suggesting a possible answer. It is obvious 
 that some universes are more comprehensive than 
 others. If a man acts from the point of view of the 
 happiness of his nation as a whole, this is evidently a 
 more comprehensive point of view than that from 
 which he acts when he has regard only to his own 
 happiness. The former includes the latter. So too, if 
 a man acts from the point of view of his own happi- 
 ness throughout the year, he acts from a more com- 
 prehensive point of view than if he has regard only to 
 the happiness of the passing hour. Now the narrower 
 the point of view from which we act, the more certain 
 we are to fall into inconsistency and self-contradiction. 
 
 selves, that is to say, by tbeir surroundings and their own past 
 acts, and thus erect in the inner forum of conscience a more lenient 
 code for their own transgressions than that which they apply to 
 others. We all know that a fault which a man has often committed 
 seems to him slighter than one he has refrained from and seen 
 others committing. Often he gets others to take the same view. 
 4 It is only his way,' they say : ' it is just like Roger.' The same 
 thing happens with nations." There is perhaps some cynicism in 
 this ; but it contains sufficient truth to illustrate the present point
 
 3-] THE STANDARD AS I-IAIT1XESS.' 209 
 
 If the universe within which we act is merely that of the 
 passing hour, that universe will no longer be the dom- 
 inant one when the hour is past ; and then we shall 
 find ourselves acting from some different, and perhaps 
 inconsistent point of view. If, on the other hand, the 
 universe within which we act is broad and compre- 
 hensive, we may be able to maintain our point pi 
 view consistently through life, and also to apply it tc 
 the actions of others. The wider universe may, there- 
 fore, be regarded as higher or better than the narrower 
 one, since it enables us to maintain a more consistent 
 point of view in our actions. From this consideration 
 we may partly see why it is that one universe is to be 
 regarded as higher or better than another. Still, this 
 does not make it quite clear. For sometimes when we 
 prefer one universe to another, the former does not 
 include the latter, and is not obviously wider than it. 
 What is the ground of preference in such cases we shall 
 consider at a later point in this inquiry. But in the 
 meantime, it may be well to notice a plausible expla- 
 nation of the preference, which we shall see reason 
 afterwards to reject. In such a subject as Ethics, 
 erroneous doctrines are often almost as instructive as 
 those that are correct. 
 
 3. SATISFACTION OF DESIRES. When a desire attains 
 the end to which it is directed, the desire is satisfied ; 
 and this satisfaction ij attended by an agreeable feel- 
 ing ' a feeling of pleasure, enjoyment, or happiness. 
 
 1 I follow Dr. James Ward and others in using the term " Feeling * 
 for pleasure and pain. It is, however, a very ambiguous term, and 
 perhaps the term " Affection," which is used by Prof. Titchener in his 
 Outline of Psychology, is in some ways preferable. Se Stout's Manual 
 f Tsychology, Book II., chap. viii. 
 
 Eth. 14
 
 210 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. IV. 
 
 On the other hand, when the end of a desire is not 
 attained, we have a disagreeable feeling a feeling of 
 pain, misery, or unhappiness. Now if we act within a 
 wide universe, or within a universe that includes de- 
 sires that are continually recurring throughout life, we 
 shall be acting in such a way as to satisfy our desires 
 with great frequency, and so to have many feelings of 
 pleasure. On the other hand, if we act within a nar- 
 row universe, or one containing desires that do not 
 often recur, we may have few satisfactions and a fre- 
 quent occurrence of painful feelings. Now it seems 
 plausible to say that, since what we aim at is the satis- 
 faction of our desires, the best aim is that which will 
 bring the greatest number of pleasures and the smallest 
 number of pains. This consideration would supply us 
 with a criterion of higher and lower universes. The 
 highest universe within which we could act would be 
 that which would supply us with the greatest number 
 of pleasures and the smallest number of pains. The 
 highest universe, in fact, would be that which is con- 
 stituted by the consideration of our greatest happiness 
 throughout life; or, if we consider others as well as 
 ourselves, by the consideration of the greatest happi- 
 ness of the greatest number. This leads us to the con- 
 sideration of Hedonism. 
 
 4. VARIETIES OF HEDONISM. Hedonism is the general 
 term for those theories that regard happiness or pleas- 
 ure as the supreme end of life. It is derived from the 
 Greek word 1)&ovj, meaning pleasure. These theories 
 have taken many different forms. It has been held 
 by some that men always do seek pleasure, f. e. that 
 pleasure in some form is always the ultimate object of 
 dteirt; whereas other Hedonists confine themselves
 
 3-] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 211 
 
 to the view that men ought always to seek pleasure. 
 The former theory has been called by Prof. Sidgwick 
 Psychological Hedonism, because it simply affirms the 
 seeking of pleasure as a psychological fact ; whereas 
 he describes the other theory as Ethical Hedonism. 
 Again, some have held that what each man seeks, or ' 
 ought to seek, is his own pleasure ; while others hold ., 
 that what each seeks, or ought to seek, is the pleasure 
 of all human beings, or even of all sentient creatures. 
 Prof. Sidgwick has called the former of these views 
 Egoistic Hedonism ; the latter, Universalistic Hedonism^ 
 The latter has also been called Utilitarianism which, 
 however, is a very inappropriate name. f Most of the 
 earlier ethical Hedonists were also psychological 
 Hedonists ; but this latter view has now been almost 
 universally abandoned. Egoistic Hedonism has also 
 been generally abandoned. Its chief upholders were 
 the ancient Cyrenaics and Epicureans. 2 Some more 
 modern writers, however, such as Bentham and Mill 
 did not clearly distinguish between egoistic and 
 Universalistic Hedonism, and consequently, though in 
 the main supporting only the latter, often seemed to 
 be giving their adhesion to the former. The student 
 must be careful to distinguish between these different 
 kinds of Hedonism : otherwise great confusion will 
 
 * See below, 9. 
 
 8 For an account of these see Sidgwick's History of Ethics, pp. 32-3, 
 *nd pp. 82-90. See also Zeller's Socrates and the Socratic Schools, 
 nd Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics. Prof. Wallace's little volume 
 on Epicureanism (" Chief Ancient Philosophies ") is a most delight- 
 ful book, which every student ought to read. Prof. Watson's 
 Hedonistic Theories from Aristippus to Spencer is also exceedingly 
 interesting, and, though somewhat popular in its mode of treatment 
 to nearly always reliable,
 
 212 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. IV. 
 
 result. Now the doctrine of Psychological Hedonism 
 has already been considered in Book I. It is simply 
 a statement of fact ; whereas Ethical Hedonism is a 
 theory of Value, a theory of the ground upon which 
 one form of action ought to be preferred to others. 
 
 5. ETHICAL HEDONISM. We have seen that the theory 
 of psychological Hedonism is unsound. Ethical He- 
 donism, however, does not stand or fall with this. 
 On the contrary, as Dr. Sidgwick has pointed out, 1 
 ethical Hedonism is scarcely compatible with psycho- 
 logical Hedonism, at least in its most extreme form. 
 If we always did seek our own greatest pleasure, there 
 vrould be no point in saying that we ought to seek it ; 
 while, on the other hand, it would be absurd to say 
 that we ought to seek the pleasure of others, except in 
 so far as this could be shown to coincide with our own. 
 Of course, if psychological Hedonism be merely inter- 
 preted as meaning that we always do seek pleasure of 
 some sort, then ethical Hedonism may be understood 
 as teaching that we ought to seek the greatest pleasure, 
 whether our own or that of others. But, in any case, 
 there is no necessary connection between the two 
 doctrines.* The confusion that has often been made 
 
 i Methods of Ethics, Book I., chap, iv., L 
 
 * It will be seen, therefore, that I do not agree with Mr. Muirhead 
 (Elements of Ethics, p. 114) in regarding the psychological form of 
 Hedonism as " also its logical form." At the same time, it should be 
 observed that systems of ethical Hedonism (especially when egoistic) 
 have nearly always been made to rest on psychological Hedonism, 
 Nor is this necessarily inconsistent ; for most Hedonists (especially 
 egoistic Hedonists) have denied any absolute "ought" as having 
 authority over men's natural inclinations. They have regarded 
 Ethics as simply laying down rules for the guidance of our actions, 
 so as to secure the greatest possible gratification to our natural im- 
 pulses. They have thought that by the introduction of adequate "aanc-
 
 5-] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 213 
 
 between the two theories seems to be due in part to 
 an ambiguity in the word "desirable." 1 This point 
 also may be illustrated by a passage from Mill. "The 
 only proof," he says, " capable of being given that an 
 object is visible, is that people actually see it. The 
 only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear 
 it ... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evi- 
 dence it is possible to produce that anything is desir- 
 able, is that \people do actually desire it." It is here 
 assumed that the meaning of the word "desirable" is 
 analogous to that of "visible" and "audible." But 
 "visible" means "able to be seen," and "audible" 
 means " able to be heard" ; whereas " desirable" does 
 not usually mean ' ' able to be desired." When we say 
 that anything is desirable, we do not usually mean 
 merely that it is able to be desired. There is scarcely 
 anything that is not able to be desired. What we 
 mean is rather that it is reasonably to be desired, or that 
 it ought to be desired. When the Hedonist says that 
 pleasure is the only thing that is desirable, he means 
 that it is the only thing that ought to be desired. But 
 the form of the word "desirable" seems to have mis- 
 led several writers into the notion that they ought to 
 
 lions" (see below, Note to Book III., chap. vL) the greatest pleasure 
 of the community as a whole might be made coincident with the 
 individual's greatest pleasure. Bentham was particularly explicit 
 on this point, saying even, paradoxically, that the word " ought " 
 " ought to be abolished." (But cf. Principles of Morals and Legisla- 
 tion, chap, i., la) But this view is, of course, incompatible with 
 the admission (now generally made by all Hedonists) that the 
 gratification of our own inclinations may conflict with duty. If this 
 is allowed, ethical Hedonism cannot rest on psychological Cf. 
 Gizycki's Introduction to the Study of Ethics, pp. 7078. 
 * Cf. Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics, Book III., chap, xiii, j
 
 214 ETHICS. [BK. IL, CH. iv. 
 
 show also that pleasure is the only thing that is capable 
 of being desired. 1 The latter view is that of psycho- 
 logical Hedonism, which seems clearly to be unsound. 
 The former is that of ethical Hedonism, which we have 
 still to examine. 
 
 We have already stated that there are two forms of 
 ethical Hedonism egoistic and universalistic. But be- 
 fore we proceed to consider these, it will be well to 
 indicate more precisely what the general meaning of 
 ethical Hedonism is. 
 
 6. QUANTITY OF PLEASURE. Hedonism is not merely 
 the vague theory that we ought to seek pleasure. It 
 states definitely that we ought to seek the greatest 
 pleasure. Otherwise of course it would give us no 
 criterion of right and wrong in conduct Pleasure 
 may be found by acting in the most contradictory 
 ways. But when we are told to seek the greatest plea- 
 sure, there can usually be but one course to follow. In 
 estimating the quantity of pleasure, it is usually said 
 that there are two points to be taken into account 
 intensity and duration.* Some pleasures are preferable 
 to others because they last longer. Pains require also 
 
 1 The fallacy here involved is that known to writers on Logic as 
 the " Fallacy of Figure of Speech " (figure? dictionis). See Whately's 
 Logic, pp. 117-18, Davis's Theory of Thought, p. 270, Welton's Manual 
 of Logic, vol. II., p. 243. Jevons (Elementary Lessons on Logic, p. 175) 
 seems to have quite misunderstood this fallacy, as well as many 
 others. 
 
 3 In estimating the value of pleasures, there are, according to Ben- 
 tham, some other qualities also which should be taken into account 
 viz. certainty, propinquity, fecundity (power of producing other 
 pleasures), and purity (freedom from pain). He considered also 
 that we should take account of their extent/, e. the number of per- 
 sons who participate in them. See his Principles of Morals and Legis- 
 lation, He summed up his view in the following doggerel verse
 
 7-] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 21 5 
 
 to be taken into account. Pain is simply the opposite 
 of pleasure, and is consequently to be treated just at 
 negative quantities are treated in mathematics. If a 
 pleasure is represented by -f- , the corresponding pain 
 will be represented by -a ; and what we are to aim at 
 is to secure the greatest sum of pleasures or the small- 
 est sum of pains, pleasures being counted as positive 
 and pains as negative. If there are three pleasures, 
 valued respectively at 3, 4, and 5 ; 5 is to be preferred 
 to either 3 or 4, 3 -}- 4 is to be preferred to 5, 3 4- 5 to 
 3+4, and 4 + 5 to 3 -f- 5- Again, if we have pains 
 valued at 3, 4, 5 ; 3 is to be preferred to 4, and 
 4 to - 5. So too 5 3 is to be preferred to 4 3, and 
 3 4 to 3-5; while between 4 3 and 5-4, or between 
 3-3 and 4-4, there is no ground of preference. And 
 so on. 
 
 7. EGOISTIC HEDONISM. Egoistic Hedonism is the 
 doctrine that what each ought to seek is his own greatest 
 pleasure. Almost the only writers who have held this 
 doctrine in a pure form are the Cyrenaics and Epicu- 
 reans. The writers of the former school, however, 
 confined themselves to inculcating the pursuit of the 
 pleasure of each moment as it passes f. e. they did 
 not take account of duration. The Epicureans in- 
 culcated rather the endeavour to secure the happiness 
 
 "Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure, 
 Such marks in pleasures and in pains endura 
 Such pleasures seek, if private be thy end ; 
 If it be public, wide let them extend, 
 Such pains avoid, whichever be thy view ; 
 If pains must come, let them extend to few." 
 
 Cf. Sidgwick's History of Ethics, pp. 240-1, and Dewey's OvtHntoJ 
 Eihict, pp. 36-7.
 
 216 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. IV. 
 
 of life as a whole. In modern times, owing to the 
 spirit of self-sacrifice introduced by Christianity, this 
 doctrine has seldom been avowed in any form. Hobbes f 
 and Gassendi are the chief modern writers who 
 decidedly adopt this view ; and it is by them made to 
 rest on psychological Hedonism. It appears also in a 
 manner in Spinoza ; a but he subordinates it to a cer- 
 tain metaphysical theory, which we cannot here con- 
 sider. 
 
 Egoistic Hedonism has always presented a repulsive 
 appearance to the moral consciousness. Yet it is pos- 
 sible to give it a plausible appearance, and even at the 
 present time it is recognised by Dr. Sidgwick as an 
 inevitable element in a complete system of Ethics. 
 The reason why this should seem to be so is evident 
 enough. It is clear that the end at which we are to 
 aim must be some end that will give us satisfaction. 
 When asked why we pursue any end, the only reason- 
 able answer that can be given, is that it satisfies some 
 
 1 For an account of Hobbes, see- Sidgwick's History of Ethics, pp 
 163-170. It should be observed, however (what perhaps Dr. Sidg- 
 wick does not sufficiently bring out), that the Egoism of Hobbes is 
 much more pronounced than his Hedonism. It is even open to 
 question whether he is strictly to be regarded as a Hedonist at all, 
 though on the whole the answer seems to be in the affirmative. Cf. 
 Croom Robertson's Hobbes, p. 1361 Helvetius and Mandeville may 
 perhaps also be classed as Egoistic Hedonists. See Lecky's History 
 of European Morals, p. 6 sqq. But Mandeville can hardly be taken 
 seriously. It should be added that scarcely any of these writers can 
 be regarded as purely (or at least consistently) egoistic. Even 
 Hobbes is led in the end to recognise a law of Reason (though of a 
 rery derivative character) bidding us have regard to the general 
 good. See Croom Robertson's Hobbes, p. I4Z 
 
 See Principal Caird's Spinoza, chaps. xiL and xiiL Spinoza'* 
 highest end was rather blessedness than pleasure. See below, & 
 UX and Chap. V., 14
 
 /] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 2I/ 
 
 demand of our nature ; and the only finally satisfac- 
 tory answer that can be given, is that it satisfies the 
 most fundamental demand of our nature. For if we 
 say that we pursue the end for some external reason- 
 as, e. g. because we are commanded by some supe- 
 rior authority there still remains the question why we 
 are to be influenced by that external reason. The only 
 answer that leaves no further question behind it, is the 
 answer that has reference to an ultimate demand of 
 our nature. Now, when we are asked what it is that 
 satisfies the ultimate demands of our nature, it is very 
 natural to answer "Pleasure." 
 
 On consideration, however, it appears that, in giv- 
 ing this answer, we are misled by the same ambiguity 
 as that which we encountered in dealing with psycho- 
 logical Hedonism. It is undoubtedly true that what- 
 ever satisfies the ultimate demands of our nature will 
 bring pleasure with it, and may consequently be de- 
 scribed as a pleasure. But this pleasure must have 
 some objective content, and that content is not itself 
 pleasure. The object that gives us pleasure may be 
 the pleasure of some one else, or it may be the welfare 
 of our country, or it may be the fulfilment of what we 
 conceive to be our duty. These things are pleasures 
 i. e. they are objects the attainment of which will bring 
 us pleasure. But they are not themselves pleasure 
 t. e. agreeable feeling. Here, again, therefore, to say 
 that we ought to seek pleasures, is not to say that we 
 ought to seek pleasure. 
 
 Dr. Sidgwick, however, thinks * that " when we sit 
 down in a cool hour " (as he says, quoting Butler), wt 
 
 Hetturts of Ethics. Book III., chap, T. f 5,
 
 218 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. iv. 
 
 perceive that there is nothing which it is reasonable to 
 seek i*. e. nothing which is desirable in itself except 
 pleasure. He then argues that since pleasure is the 
 one desirable thing, the greatest pleasure must be the 
 most desirable. A more intense pleasure is conse- 
 quently to be preferred to a less intense, and a pleasure 
 which lasts longer to one that is of shorter duration. 
 Further, he urges that, in estimating our pleasures, a 
 past or future pleasure ought, c&tcris paribus, to be 
 regarded as of equal value with a present one. For 
 mere difference of time * can of itself make no dif- 
 ference to the value of our pleasures.* All this is 
 evidently true, on the assumption that pleasure is the 
 one desirable thing. But there seems to be no warrant 
 for this assumption, a 
 
 8. UNIVERSALISTIC HEDONISM. Universalistic He- 
 donism or Utilitarianism is the theory that what we 
 ought to aim at is the greatest possible amount of 
 pleasure of all human beings, or of all sentient crea- 
 tures. The chief exponents of this theory are Bentham, 
 J. S. Mill, and Professor Sidgwick. Bentham's proof 
 of the theory is not very explicit,* and may perhaps 
 be considered to be sufficiently represented by that 
 of Mill. Mill's argument is stated thus in the fourth 
 chapter of his Utilitarianism : ' ' No reason can be given 
 why the general happiness is desirable, except that 
 each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, 
 
 i Apart from the uncertainty which Is generally connected with 
 the lapse of time. Allowance would, of course, have to be mad* 
 for this. 
 
 * Methods of Ethics, Book III., chap, xiil, > 
 
 * Cf. 5, and see below, ia 
 
 4 /. Sidgwick's History of Ethics, pp. 241-345.
 
 8.] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 219 
 
 desires his own happiness. This, however, being a 
 fact, we have not only all the proof which the case 
 admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that 
 happiness is a good : that each person's happiness is a 
 good to that person, and the general happiness, there- 
 fore, a good to the aggregate of all persons. " He then 
 goes on to argue that happiness is the only good, on 
 the ground that we have already noticed viz. that to 
 desire a thing and to find it pleasant are but two ways 
 of expressing the same thing. Now it would be diffi- 
 cult to collect in a short space so many fallacies as are 
 here committed. We have already noticed the confu- 
 sion in the last point, due to the ambiguity in the word 
 "pleasure." We have also noticed the confusion with 
 regard to the meaning of "desirable," which vitiates 
 the first part of the argument It only remains to 
 notice the fallacy involved in the inference that " the 
 general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all per- 
 sons." The fallacy is that which is known in logic as 
 "the fallacy of composition." It is inferred that be- 
 cause my pleasures are a good to me, yours to you, 
 his to him, and so on, therefore my pleasures -f- your 
 pleasures -f- his pleasures are a good to me -f- you -f- 
 him. It is forgotten that neither the pleasures nor the 
 persons are capable of being made into an aggregate. 
 It is as if we should argue that because each one of a 
 hundred soldiers is six feet high, therefore the whole 
 company is six hundred feet high. The answer is that 
 this would be the case if the soldiers stood on one 
 another's heads. And similarly Mill's argument would 
 hold good if the minds of all human beings were to be 
 rolled into one, so as to form an aggregate. But as it 
 is, " the aggregate of all persons " is nobody, and con*
 
 220 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. IV. 
 
 sequently nothing can be a good to him. A good must 
 be a good for somebody. f 
 
 Dr. Sidgwick's proof is of a more satisfactory char- 
 acter. He considers universalistic Hedonism to be 
 established in the very same way as Egoistic Hedonism 
 is established.* He thinks that he has shown that 
 pleasure is the only thing that is in itself desirable. 
 This being the case, pleasure is always to be chosen. 
 And in the choice of pleasure, reason bids us be im- 
 partial. The greatest attainable pleasure is always to 
 be selected. In choosing our own pleasures, the future 
 is to be regarded as of equal weight with the present. 
 In like manner, also, the pleasures of others are to be 
 regarded as of equal weight with our own. It might 
 be thought that in this way Dr. Sidgwick had over- 
 thrown egoistic Hedonism, and shown universalistic 
 Hedonism to be the only reasonable Hedonistic system. 
 But, for some reason which it is not easy to discover, 
 he does not consider this to be the case. So far as 
 can be made out, the reason seems to be that what is 
 primarily our good is our own pleasure ; and it is only 
 in a secondary way that we discover that the pleasure 
 of others ought to be equally regarded. Now this 
 secondary discovery cannot overthrow the first primary 
 truth. Hence we are bound still to regard our own 
 pleasure as a supreme good. For this reason Dr. Sidg- 
 wick considers that there is a certain contradiction or 
 dualism in the final recommendations of reason. We 
 are bound to aeek our own greatest pleasure, and yet 
 we are bound also to seek the greatest pleasure of the 
 aggregate of sentient beings. Now these two enda 
 
 1 Cf. Bradley's Ethical Studies, p. 103. 
 
 Methods of Ethics, Book IIL, chape xiii, J 3.
 
 8.] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 221 
 
 may not, and probably will not, coincide. There is 
 thus a conflict between two different commands of 
 reason. This conflict is referred to by Dr. Sidgwick 
 as "the Dualism of Practical Reason." 1 But if there 
 is any force in this consideration, it seems as if we 
 might carry it further, and say that there is a similar 
 conflict between the pursuit of our own greatest plea- 
 sure at a given moment and the pursuit of the greates* 
 happiness of life as a whole. For it is the pleasure of 
 a given moment that appears to be primarily desirable. 
 At any given moment what seems desirable is the 
 satisfaction of our present wants. Consequently, on 
 the same principle we might say that we are bound to 
 seek the greatest pleasure of a given moment no less 
 than the greatest pleasure of our whole life. There 
 would thus be three kinds of Hedonism instead of two 
 the Cyrenaic view being recognised as well as the 
 Epicurean and the Benthamite. However, it is per- 
 haps scarcely worth while to consider which form of 
 Hedonism is the most reasonable, as they seem all to 
 be based on a misconception. 
 
 Two points may be noted with regard to universal- 
 istic Hedonism. In the first place, it used to be de- 
 scribed as Utilitarianism, because it was supposed to 
 inculcate the pursuit of what is useful. But it is now 
 seen that pleasure is not more useful than any other 
 possible end ; and the name has consequently been 
 dropped in scientific writings though, for shortness, 
 
 1 For Dr. Sidgwick's view on this point, see his Methods of Ethics, 
 concluding chapter. Prof. Gizycki, who is to a large extent a fol- 
 lower of Dr. Sidgwick, does not accept his doctrine on this point 
 See his criticism of the fourth edition of the Methods of Ethics in th 
 Juternational Journal of Ethics for October, 1890.
 
 222 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. IV. 
 
 the term is still often used as a designation of the school 
 In the second place, the end of universalistic Hedonism 
 used to be described as being the attainment of "the 
 greatest happiness of the greatest number." The mean- 
 ing of this was, 1 that if we had to choose between a 
 great happiness of a small number and a smaller hap- 
 piness of a great number, we ought to prefer the latter, 
 even if the total happiness were less. But it is now 
 recognised that if pleasure is to be regarded as the 
 good, we are bound to choose the greatest pleasure, 
 even if it should be concentrated in a single person, 
 instead of being distributed over a large number. 
 Accordingly, this phrase has also been abandoned.* 
 
 9. GENERAL CRITICISM OF HEDONISM, (a) Pleasure 
 and Value. We see now the general foundation on 
 which the Hedonistic theory of Ethics rests. It may 
 be based either on a psychological theory of the object 
 of desire or on a theory of value. The former basis 
 has been perhaps sufficiently discussed ; but on the 
 latter some remarks must still be added. 
 
 The general point of view is that, though our desires 
 may often be directed to other objects than pleasure, 
 yet, when we set ourselves calmly to consider the 
 matter, we see that pleasure is that which alone con- 
 stitutes the value for us of the objects of our experi- 
 
 1 In so far as it had any definite meaning. The phrase seems to 
 have been frequently employed without any definite meaning being 
 attached to it There is an interesting discussion of this point in 
 Edgeworth's Mathematical Psychics, p. 117 sqq. 
 
 8 It should be observed that Bentham himself seems, in his later 
 years, to have discarded the expression " of the greatest number.' 
 His reasons for doing so (which are not very clearly explained) may 
 be found in Burton's Introduction to Bentham's Works, pp. 18 and ift 
 note.
 
 9-] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 22$ 
 
 ence. A psychosis (to use Prof. Huxley's term, 1 
 adopted by recent psychologists), it e. a state of con- 
 sciousness, is valuable for us exactly in proportion as 
 it is pleasant. Consequently, though the impulse of 
 desire may sometimes move towards the less pleasant 
 of two possible objects ; and though, therefore, we 
 cannot say that our desires are always moved simply 
 by the calculation of pleasure ; yet, when we reflect 
 calmly, and from a purely egoistic point of view, we 
 see that the only reasonable ground of preference be- 
 tween two psychoses is that the one is more pleasurable 
 than the other. Hence, though it is not true that we 
 always act in such a way as to secure for ourselves the 
 pleasantest of possible psychoses, yet we ought (/. e. 
 it is reasonable) to secure for ourselves the most plea- 
 sant, so long as this does not interfere with the pleasure 
 of any one else ; and, in general, we ought to act in 
 such a way as to make the sum of the pleasures of all 
 psychoses, present and future, as great as possible. 
 
 Now it is true, I think, that pleasure may fairly be 
 described as a sense of -value. * Mr. Bradley has said * 
 
 1 Huxley's Hume, p. 62. 
 
 3 Cf. Dewey's Psychology, p. 16. I mean that it is truer to call 
 pleasure a sense of value than to represent it as constituting value. 
 But even to call it a sense of value involves a kind of anticipation. 
 In sensuous pleasure, for instance, we can hardly be said to have 
 any consciousness of value. The general subject of the relation 
 between pleasure and value is, however, too complicated to be dis- 
 cussed here. I have made some attempt to deal with it in a Note on 
 Value at the end of Chap. IV. of my Introduction to Social Philosophy. 
 Cf. also ' Notes on the Theory of Value " in Mind, New Series, Vol. 
 IV., no. 16. 
 
 ' Ethical Studies, p. 234. Mr. Bradley has since abandoned this 
 view. The element of truth in it seems to lie in the fact that 
 pleasure consists in a certain harmony of the content of conscious-
 
 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. IV. 
 
 that pleasure is essentially " the feeling ofself-realised- 
 ness. " Exception might be taken to this, on the ground 
 that it can scarcely be applied to the feelings of ani- 
 mals, or to the more animal pleasures of men. But at 
 any rate we may say that the feeling of pleasure is the 
 accompaniment of objects which have a certain value ' 
 for the consciousness to which they are presented. It 
 is of some importance, I think, to remember that it is 
 the objects, not the feelings of pleasure, that have 
 value the feeling of pleasure being the sense of value, 
 not the value itself; but with this point we need not 
 here trouble ourselves. It is sufficient to note that, 
 from this point of view, it seems at least plausible to 
 say that, though pleasure is not the direct object of 
 desire, and though it is not even in itself that which 
 has value for us, yet it may be accepted as the measure 
 of value ; just as the degrees of a thermometer, though 
 not themselves heat, may be taken as the measure of 
 heat ; or as a token currency, though of little value in 
 itself, may serve to measure the values of commodi- 
 ties. 
 
 This, I say, is a plausible view. But it evidently 
 rests on the assumption that pleasures are all of the 
 same sort ; just as the power of money to serve as a 
 measure of the values of goods rests on the assumption 
 of a certain uniformity in the currency. If the sense 
 
 ness with the form of unity within which it falls. But this form of 
 unity need not be a definite consciousness of self and its realization. 
 i Wherein this value consists, we are not here called upon to de- 
 cide. It may lie, as many psychologists have supposed, in a certain 
 heightening of general vitality or of particular vital functions. On 
 the general nature of pleasure and pain, and their place in our 
 conscious life, the student may be referred to Mr. Stout's Analytic 
 PtychoUgy, chap, xii., or to his Manual, pp. 234-240.
 
 9-] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 22$ 
 
 of value which we have in pleasant feeling is to be 
 taken as the measure of the values which we reasonably 
 attach to the different objects that are presented to our 
 consciousness, this implies that the values are always 
 judged by the same standard, always presented, so to 
 speak, before the same court of appeal. Or (taking Mr. 
 Bradley's phrase) if pleasure is the feeling of self-rea- 
 lisedness, then in taking pleasure as the measure of 
 our self-realisation, we assume that it is always the 
 same self that is realised. But is this the case ? Be- 
 fore considering this point any further, it may be 
 well to notice the form in which it was presented by 
 Mill. 
 
 (b) Quality of Pleasures. We may say briefly that 
 the Hedonistic theory proceeds on the assumption that 
 all pleasures are capable of being quantitatively com- 
 paredthat it is always possible to determine with 
 regard to two pleasures, or two sums of pleasures, 
 which is the greater and which is the less. On this point 
 a serious difficulty was raised 1 byj. S. Mill, who called 
 attention to the fact that pleasures differ not merely in 
 quantity but also in quality that some pleasures are 
 preferable to others, not because as pleasures they are 
 greater, but because they are of a more excellent kind. 
 If this is the case, it is evident that the Hedonistic 
 theory must be abandoned, for it is then no longer true 
 that pleasure is the only desirable thing. One pleasure 
 is, on this view, more desirable than another, not on 
 account of its nature as pleasure, but on account of 
 some other quality that it possesses, beyond its mere 
 
 1 Utilitarianism, chap. ii. He did not, indeed, raise the point as a 
 difficulty, but rather as indicating a way out of a difficulty. But 
 evidently it is a difficulty from the Hedonistic point of view. 
 Eth.
 
 226 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. iv. 
 
 pleasantness. Further, if we admit differences of 
 quality, it becomes impossible to place pleasures, and 
 sums of pleasure, in any precise order of desirability. 
 Qualities cannot be estimated against quantities, unless 
 in some way they can be reduced to quantities and 
 this, on Mill's supposition, is not the case. It becomes 
 important, therefore, to consider whether there really 
 are qualitative differences among pleasures. In order 
 to do this, we must recur to some of the points that 
 were discussed in a former chapter. 
 
 (c) Kinds of Pleasure. At the beginning of Book I. 
 we distinguished between appetites and desires, and we 
 pointed out also that desires may belong to a great 
 variety of distinct universes. Now just as there is a dis- 
 tinction between different kinds of desire, so there is a 
 distinction between the feelings of satisfaction which 
 accompany the attainment of their objects. When an 
 appetite is satisfied, the feeling of satisfaction is simple 
 and immediate. It is to this kind of feeling that the term 
 pleasure is perhaps most properly applied. On the 
 other hand, the feeling which accompanies the satis- 
 faction of desire is of a more intellectual or reflective 
 character, and ought perhaps rather to be described as 
 happiness. Human desire involves the more or less 
 direct consciousness of an end, and in the feeling which 
 accompanies its satisfaction there is also a more or less 
 direct consciousness of an end attained. These feel- 
 ings vary greatly, according to the nature of the uni- 
 verse within which we are living at the time when the 
 desire is satisfied. The feelings of satisfaction that 
 belong to the universe of self-interest are very different 
 from those that belong to the universe of duty ; those 
 that belong to the universe of animal enjoyment are
 
 9.] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 22/ 
 
 very different from those that belong to the universe 
 of poetic or religious emotion. Carlyle has suggested x 
 that, in the case of such higher universes as these, the 
 feeling ought to be described rather as blessedness* 
 than as happiness. At any rate, whether or not we 
 use different words for the different universes, it seems 
 clear that the feelings in question are of very different 
 characters. It is, in fact, a very different self that is 
 realised in each of these cases ; and the feeling of self- 
 realisedness is consequently different. Or, to put it in 
 the other form that we have used, the sense of value 
 in each case is a sense of value for a different judge. 
 We are estimating, as it were, sometimes in gold, 
 sometimes in silver, and sometimes in copper. Now 
 it might be possible, no doubt, to find a common 
 denominator for these : but this common denominator 
 does not seem to be supplied in the feeling of pleasure 
 itself. 
 
 There is, however, a difficulty which is apt to pre- 
 sent itself at this point. It is apt to be thought that 
 what is different in these different cases is not the 
 feeling itself, but merely the object on which the 
 feeling depends. This is the point that we have next 
 to consider. 
 
 (d) Pleasure inseparable from its Object. Pleasure, 
 it must be remembered, is not an entity, having an ex- 
 istence by itself, independently of the object in which 
 pleasure is felt, or of the unity of consciousness to 
 
 1 Sartor Resartus, Book II., chap. Ix 
 
 * Spinoza also seems to use the term beatitude in this sense. This 
 form of happiness is found, according to Spinoza, in the ' Intellec- 
 tual Love of God," i. e. in the appreciation of the universe as tho 
 realization of a spiritual principle. Cf. also Janet's Theory of Morals, 
 Book L, chap. ix.
 
 ETHICS. [SIC. II., CH. IV. 
 
 which that object is presented. It is an element in a 
 total state of consciousness, and is entirely relative to 
 the other elements in that state. It is the inner side 
 of that of which the other elements may be said to 
 form the outer side. The sharp distinction that we 
 are apt to draw between an object of consciousness 
 and the feeling of pleasure or pain which accom- 
 panies it, is due largely to an inadequate apprehension 
 of the nature of the object which is presented to our 
 consciousness. Take, for instance, the pleasure which 
 accompanies the hearing of a musical performance. 
 The pleasure here is evidently quite distinct from the 
 music which we hear. But it must be remembered 
 that the music which we hear is not the total object 
 that is before our consciousness. The hearing of the 
 music is accompanied by all sorts of ideas which it 
 calls up in our minds. It is accompanied also by 
 other ideas which were passing through our minds 
 before the music commenced. The object which is 
 before our consciousness is a complex total of in- 
 numerable thoughts and images. Now the feeling of 
 pleasure is not this complex total ; but neither can it 
 be said to be anything that is separable from that 
 total. It is the inner side to which that total corre- 
 sponds as the outer side. Given that total, we could 
 not but have that feeling of pleasure. Change that 
 total, and our feeling of pleasure must also be 
 changed The total content of our consciousness in 
 listening to a piece of music is different from the total 
 content in reading a novel or witnessing a dramatic 
 performance : the feeling of pleasure is also different 
 The feeling and the object to which it corresponds are 
 like the two sides of a curve. They are distinguishable
 
 9-] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 22Q 
 
 from one another ; yet they are inseparable, and the 
 one necessarily varies with the other. 1 
 
 (e) Pleasures cannot be Summed. It follows from 
 this that there cannot be any calculus of pleasures 
 f. e. that the values of pleasures cannot be quanti- 
 tatively estimated. For there can be no quantitative 
 estimate of things that are not homogeneous. But, 
 indeed, even apart from this consideration, there 
 seems to be a certain confusion in the Hedonistic idea 
 that we ought to aim at a greatest sum of pleasures. 
 If pleasure is the one thing that is desirable, it is clear 
 that a sum of pleasures cannot be desirable ; for a 
 sum of pleasures is not pleasure. We are apt to think 
 that a sum of pleasures is pleasure, just as a sum of 
 
 i Dr. Sidgwick has replied to this objection, as stated by Green. 
 " It is sometimes said," he remarks (Methods of Ethics, Book II., chap, 
 ii., 2, note) " that ' pleasure as feeling, in distinction from its con- 
 ditions which are not feelings, cannot be conceived.' This is true in 
 a certain sense of the word 'conceive ' ; but not in any sense which 
 would prevent us from taking pleasure as an end of rational action. 
 To adopt an old comparison, it is neither more nor less true than the 
 statement that an angle cannot be ' conceived ' apart from its sides. 
 We certainly cannot form the notion of an angle without the notion of 
 sides containing it ; but this does not prevent us from apprehending 
 with perfect definiteness the magnitude of any angle as greater or less 
 than that of any other, without any comparison of the pairs of con- 
 taining sides. Similarly we cannot form a notion of any pleasure 
 existing apart from some ' conditions which are not feelings ' ; but 
 this is no obstacle to our comparing a pleasure felt under any given 
 conditions with any other, however otherwise conditioned, and pro- 
 nouncing it equal or unequal : and we require no more than this to 
 enable IB to take ' amount of pleasure ' as our standard in deciding 
 between alternatives of conduct" But this reply seems to involve a 
 misconception of the precise nature of the criticism. The length 
 of the sides makes no difference to the size of the angle ; whereas 
 Green's argument is that the nature of the objects makes all the 
 difference in the world to the kind of pleasure that we feeL
 
 230 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. iv. 
 
 numbers is a number. But this is evidently not th 
 ease. A sum of pleasures is not pleasure, any more 
 than a sum of men is a man. For pleasures, like men, 
 cannot be added to one another. Consequently, if 
 pleasure is the only thing that is desirable, a sum of 
 pleasures cannot possibly be desirable. If the Hedon- 
 istic view were to be adopted, we ought always to 
 desire the greatest pleasure i. e. we ought to aim at 
 producing the most intense feeling of pleasure that it 
 is possible to reach in some one's consciousness. 1 
 This would be the highest aim. A sum of smaller 
 pleasures in a number of different people's conscious- 
 nesses, could not be preferable to this ; because a sum 
 of pleasures is not pleasure at all. The reason why 
 this does not appear to be the case, is that we 
 habitually think of the desirable thing for man not as 
 a feeling of pleasure but as a continuous state of hap- 
 piness. But a continuous state of happiness is not a 
 mere feeling of pleasure. It has a certain objective con- 
 tent. Now if we regard this content as the desirable 
 thing, we do not regard the feeling of pleasure as the 
 one thing that is desirable ; ;'. e. we abandon Hedonism. 
 (/) Mailer without Form, We may sum up the de- 
 fects of Hedonism by saying that it has the opposite 
 
 1 Just as, if our object were to produce the greatest man (instead 
 of the greatest pleasure), Falstaff would have to be preferred to the 
 whole of his ragged company. We may calculate, no doubt, that 
 nine tailors make a man ; but that is only on the assumption thai 
 our object is not man as such, but the fulfilment of certain function* 
 of a man. It might be said that in a number of men there is morq 
 flesh and blood and bone than in oue. But this is to measure flesh, 
 blood, and bone, not men. So it is possible that in a number oj 
 pleasant experiences there is more of something than there is it 
 one. But they are not a greater pleasure.
 
 9-] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 23! 
 
 fault to that which we found in the system of Kant 
 Kant's principle of self-consistency gave us form with- 
 out matter the mere form of reason, with all the par- 
 ticular content of the desires left out. Hedonism, 
 on the other hand, gives us matter without form. It 
 takes up all the desires as they stand, and regards the 
 satisfaction of all as having an equal right, in so far as 
 the pleasant feeling accompanying the satisfaction is 
 equally intense and lasts equally long. This view 
 ignores the fact that what we really seek to satisfy 
 is not our desires but ourselves ; and the value of our 
 satisfactions depends on the kind of self to which the 
 satisfaction is given i. e. it depends on the universe 
 within which the satisfaction is received. It may be 
 mere animal pleasure : it may be human happiness : 
 it may be saint-like bliss. To consider it in this way 
 is to consider our desires with reference to their/orwz 
 with reference to the universe in which they have a 
 place. Hedonism ignores this form. It looks on our 
 desires and their gratifications simply as quantities 
 of raw material. It regards our wants as so many 
 mouths to be filled, and the pleasures of their satisfac- 
 tion as so many lumps of sugar to go into them. It 
 is matter without form. ' 
 
 1 For further criticism on Hedonism, I may refer to Bradley's 
 Ethical Studies, Essay III., Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, Book III., 
 chap, i., and Book IV., chaps, iii. and iv., Sorley's Ethics of Natural- 
 ism, Part I., chap, iii., Alexander's Moral Order and Progress, Book 
 II., Part I., chap, v., 2, Janet's Theory of Morals, Book I., chap, iv., 
 Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, pp. 14-67, Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, 
 Book III., chap. i. See also Watson's Hedonistic Theories from 
 Aristlppus to Spencer, and the article by Prof. James Seth, " Is 
 Pleasure the Summum Bonum ?" in the International Journal of 
 Ethics,Vo\. VI., no. 4. For a fuller statement of my own view on this 
 subject, I may refer to my Introduction to Social Philosophy, chap. iv.
 
 232 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. iv. 
 
 10. RELATION OF HAPPINESS TO THE SELF. But 
 though we thus seem bound to reject the Hedonistic 
 theory, we must not overlook the importance of hap- 
 piness. If happiness is not exactly " our being's end 
 and aim," it is yet certain that we cannot attain the end 
 of our being without attaining happiness. All that we 
 have to insist 6n is that in seeking happiness we must 
 observe exactly what kind of happiness it is that we 
 seek. Happiness is relative to the nature of the being 
 who enjoys it. The happiness of a man is different from 
 the happiness of a beast : the happiness of a wise man 
 is different from the happiness of a fool. What con- 
 stitutes our happiness, in fact, depends on the universe 
 in which we live. The smaller our universe, the more 
 easily is our happiness attained. 
 
 " That low man seeks a little thing to do, 
 
 Sees it and does it : 
 
 This high man, with a great thing to pursue. 
 Dies ere he knows it." 
 
 " It is indisputable," as Mill says, 1 " that the being 
 whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest 
 chance of having them fully satisfied ; and a highly 
 endowed being will always feel that any happiness 
 which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is 
 imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections 
 if they are at all bearable ; and they will not make him 
 envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the im- 
 perfections, but only because he feels not at all the 
 good which those imperfections qualify. It is better 
 to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied ; 
 better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." 
 IB important, then, is not that we should seek the 
 * Utilitarianism, chap, ii
 
 II.] THE STANDARD AS HAPPINESS. 233 
 
 greatest sum of happiness, but the best kind of happi- 
 ness. " We can only have the highest happiness, " said 
 George Eliot, 1 " such as goes along with being a great 
 man by having wide thoughts, and much feeling for 
 the rest of the world as well as ourselves ; and this sort 
 of happiness often brings so much pain with it that we 
 can only tell it from pain by its being what we would 
 choose before everything else, because our souls see 
 it is good." The nature of the highest happiness, then, 
 depends not on its being the greatest sum, but on its 
 belonging to the highest kind of character. That is, 
 it depends on the nature of the self, on the nature 
 of the universe within which we habitually live. To 
 attain the highest happiness, then, we must live habit- 
 ually in the highest kind of universe, and the desires 
 that belong to that universe must be satisfied. 
 
 11. SELF-REALISATION AS THE END. We seem, how- 
 ever, to be very little farther on than we were at the 
 beginning of this chapter. For at the beginning of the 
 chapter we propounded the question, how we were to 
 distinguish a higher universe from a lower; and this 
 question is still unanswered. We have only been 
 enabled to see that quantity of pleasure cannot furnish 
 the criterion, and that we must look for the criterion 
 rather in the nature of the character itself. We see, in 
 fact, that the end must consist in some form of self- 
 realisation, ;'. e. in some form of the development of 
 character that the end, in short, ought to be described 
 rather as perfection than as happiness. What per- 
 fection or self-realisation consists in, we must endea- 
 vour to find out in the following chapter. 
 
 J Epilogue to Romola.
 
 334 ETHICS. LBK. " CH ' v - 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE STANDARD AS PERFECTION. 
 
 1. APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION TO MORALS. The idea 
 that the end at which we are to aim is the realisation 
 of the self or the development of character, leads us at 
 once to regard the moral life as a process of growth. 
 Although this idea has often been applied to the moral 
 life in former ages, yet it is chiefly in recent times that 
 the conception has been made prominent. The whole 
 idea of growth or development the idea of "evolu- 
 tion," as it is often called may almost be said to be a 
 discovery of the present century. It was first brought 
 into prominence by Hegel and Comte ; it was applied 
 by Lamarck, Darwin, and others, to the origin of 
 species ; while Mr. Spencer and others have extended 
 its applications to the origin of social institutions, 
 forms of government, and the like, and even to the 
 formation of the solar and stellar systems. With these 
 applications we are not here concerned. We have to 
 deal only with the application of the idea of evolution 
 to morals. And even with this application we have to 
 deal only in a certain aspect. We are not concerned at 
 present with the fact that the moral life of individuals 
 and nations undergoes a gradual growth or develop- 
 ment in the course of years or ages. This is a fact of 
 moral history, whereas here we are concerned only 
 with the theory of that which is essential to the very
 
 2.] THE STANDARD AS PERFECTION. 235 
 
 nature of morality. When we say, then, that the idea 
 of evolution is applicable to the moral life, we mean 
 that the moral life is, in its very essence, a growth or 
 development. The sense in which it is so will, it is 
 hoped, become apparent as we proceed. 
 
 2. DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. We may say, to begin 
 with, that what we mean is this. There is in the 
 moral life of man a certain end or ideal, to which he 
 may attain, or of which he may fall short ; and the signi- 
 ficance of his life consists in the pursuit of this end 
 or ideal, and the gradual attainment of it. We may 
 illustrate what we mean by reference to the forms of 
 animal life. Among animals there are some that we 
 naturally regard as standing higher in the scale of being 
 than others. We judge them to be higher by reference 
 to a certain (it may be a somewhat vague) standard 
 that we have in our minds whether it be, as with Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer, the standard of adaptation to their 
 environment, or the standard of approximation to the 
 human type, or whatever else it may be. Now if 
 we are right in supposing that there is a continuous 
 development going on throughout the species of animal 
 existence, the main significance of this development 
 Will lie in the evolution of forms of life that approach 
 hnore and more nearly to the standard or ideal type. 
 Similarly, the evolutionary theory of Ethics is the view 
 that there is a standard or ideal of character, and that 
 the significance of the moral life consists in the grad- 
 ual approximation to that type. 
 
 3. HIGHER AND LOWER VIEWS OF DEVELOPMENT. In 
 all development there is a beginning, a process, and an 
 end. The developing thing starts from a certain level 
 and moves onwards towards a higher level. Now in
 
 236 ETHICS. [BK. ii. f CH. v. 
 
 general what is presented to us is neither the beginning 
 nor the end, but the process. The lowest forms of 
 animal life do not often come before our notice, and 
 the nature of the lowest of all is quite obscure. Nor 
 do we know what possibilities there may be of still 
 further development in the forms of animal life. The 
 starting-point and the goal are alike concealed from 
 us : we see only the race. So it is also with the moral 
 life. The earliest beginnings of the moral conscious- 
 ness are hidden in obscurity ; and, on the other hand, 
 we can scarcely form a clear conception of a perfectly 
 developed moral life. We know it only in the course 
 of its development. Nevertheless, we cannot under- 
 stand the process except by reference either to its 
 beginning or to its end. And we may endeavour to 
 understand it by reference either to the one or to the 
 other. Hence there are two possible methods of inter- 
 preting the moral life, if we adopt the theory of devel- 
 opment. We may explain it by reference to its begin- 
 ning or to its end. The former is perhaps the more 
 natural method ; as it is most usual to explain pheno- 
 mena by their causes and mode of origination. But 
 further consideration seems to show that this is in reality 
 the lower and less satisfactory method. Let us con- 
 sider briefly the nature and merits of the two methods. 
 4. EXPLANATION BY BEGINNING. It seems most 
 natural at first to endeavour to explain the moral life 
 by tracing it back to its origin in the needs of savages, 
 or even in the struggles of the lower animals. It is in 
 this way that we explain ordinary natural phenomena, 
 such as the formation of geological strata, and even the 
 growth and decline of nations. We go back to the 
 beginning, or as near to the beginning as we can get,
 
 5-] THE STANDARD AS PERFECTION. 237 
 
 and trace the causes that have been in operation 
 throughout the development of the object of our study. 
 We do not inquire what the end of it will be. To 
 inquire into this would, in general, throw little, if any, 
 light upon its actual condition. Ought not the develop- 
 ment of morals to be studied in the same way ? The 
 answer seems clear. The science of Ethics, as we 
 have already pointed out, occupies quite a different 
 point of view from that of the natural sciences. It is 
 not concerned with the investigation of origins and 
 with the tracing of history, but with the determination 
 of ideals and the consideration of the way in which 
 these ideals influence conduct. Now the ideal lies at 
 the end rather than at the beginning. In dealing with 
 natural phenomena we are concerned primarily with 
 what ts, and secondarily with the way in which it has 
 come to be what it is. In Ethics, on the other hand, 
 it is of comparatively little interest to know what is. 1 
 "Man partly is, and wholly hopes to be." It is what 
 he hopes to be that determines the direction of his 
 growth. The meaning of this, however, may become 
 clearer if we direct attention for a little to the theory of 
 one of the most eminent of those recent writers who 
 have endeavoured to deal with the moral life by tracing 
 it back to its origin. 
 
 5. MR. HERBERT SPENCER'S VIEW OF ETHICS. Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer's theory on this subject is contained 
 in a very interesting book entitled The Data of Ethics.* 
 To give any complete account of the contents of that 
 
 1 /. e. what is in the purely natural history sense, in which we say 
 that the lion is, while the unicorn is not. In the deeper sense, of 
 course, Ethics is concerned with what is viz. with what man's fun- 
 damental nature is. Cf. above, chap. iii. of the present Book, 3. 
 
 * NQW Part L of his larger book, The Principles of Ethics.
 
 238 ETHICS. [BK, IL, CH. v. 
 
 book would be quite impossible here ; but the follow* 
 ing may be taken as indicating its drift f Mr. Spencer 
 begins by trying to determine what we mean by con- 
 duct, and what we mean by calling conduct good or 
 bad. He examines this question by going back to the 
 life of the lower animals. In all life there is what may 
 be called conduct, and in all life it may be good or 
 bad. Now the essence of life, as seen in its lowest 
 forms, consists, according to Mr. Spencer, in "the 
 continuous adjustment of internal relations to external 
 relations " **. e. the constant effort of an organism to 
 adapt itself to its environment All conduct tends 
 either to promote or to hinder such adaptation. In so 
 far as it tends to promote it, it is good : in so far as it 
 tends to hinder it, it is bad. Good conduct produces 
 pleasure, because it brings the organism into harmony 
 with its surroundings. Bad conduct produces pain. 
 Nearly all conduct is partly good and partly bad. 
 Perfectly good conduct would be that which produces 
 only pleasure with no accompanying pain. But con- 
 duct is relatively good when it tends on the whole to 
 produce a surplus of pleasure over pain i. e. when it 
 tends on the whole to produce a more perfect ad- 
 justment of organism to environment. The supreme 
 moral end is to help on the process of development, 
 which consists in a more and more perfect adjustment 
 of internal relations to external relations. 
 
 6. CRITICISM OF MR. SPENCER'S VIEW. Now this 
 theory is in many ways suggestive. It helps to bring 
 the study of the moral life into co-ordination with the 
 study of life generally ; and this is in harmony with 
 the whole development of modern scientific thought, 
 Cf. Sidg wick's History of Ethics, pp. 254-25?.
 
 6.] THE STANDARD AS PERFECTION. 239 
 
 which leads us to believe that there are no absolute 
 divisions between the various objects of our knowledge, 
 and that we are never likely to fully understand any 
 one of these objects without bringing it into relation 
 to all the rest. Yet a little reflection seems to show 
 that Mr. Spencer's theory involves a kind of Zarepov 
 -Kpdrepov, or putting the cart before the horse. For what 
 is meant by saying that the development of our lives 
 means a continuous process of adjustment to our 
 environment ? It is easy to see that in a certain sense 
 such a process is continually going on. The progress 
 of our knowledge means that we are constantly adjust- 
 ing our ideas more and more to the objective realities 
 of nature. In like manner, the advance of the arts 
 means that we are gradually learning to adjust our 
 modes of life to the necessities imposed upon us by 
 the conditions of the external world. And so in 
 morals, in so far as we can claim to have "sweeter 
 manners, purer laws "than our forefathers, in so far as 
 we have wider ideas of what is required of us, and are 
 more conscientious in meeting these requirements, all 
 this means that we are adjusting our modes of life 
 more and more to the necessities of the case. But 
 what exactly is implied in this adjustment? Does it 
 not imply, above everything, that we have certain 
 ends that we set before ourselves to be attained ? 
 When we say that two things are not adjusted to one 
 another, we imply that we have some idea of a relation 
 in which the two things ought to stand and in which 
 at present they do not stand. In a sense everything is 
 adjusted to everything else. Death is an adjustment 
 A living being is conscious of a certain want of adjust- 
 ment only because it has certain definite aims. The
 
 240 ETHICS. [BK. IL, CH. v. 
 
 scientific man perceives that his ideas are not fully 
 adjusted to the facts of nature, and he pursues know- 
 ledge in order that he may adjust them more com- 
 pletely ; but a stone is adjusted to its environment 
 without the need of any such effort. 1 The scientific 
 man is aware of a want of adjustment simply because 
 he is aware of an unattained end in other words, 
 because he brings an ideal with him to which the world 
 does not conform. But if this be so, then surely we 
 ought to turn the statement the other way about W 
 ought not to say that the deficiency of living beings, 
 which the development of their lives is gradually 
 removing, consists in the fact that they are not 
 adjusted to their environment ; but rather, at least in 
 the case of self-conscious beings, that the deficiency 
 consists in the fact that their environment is not 
 adjusted to them. For it is not in the environment, but 
 in themselves, that the standard lies, with reference to 
 which a deficiency is pronounced. If a man were 
 content to " let the world slide," he would soon enough 
 become adjusted to his environment ; it is because he 
 insists on pursuing his own ends that the process of 
 adjustment is a hard one. It is because he wants to 
 adjust his environment to himself; or rather, because 
 he wants to adjust both himself and his surroundings 
 to a certain ideal of what his life ought to be. Even in 
 the case of the lower animals, indeed, it would often 
 be as true to say that they adjust their environment 
 to themselves as that they adjust themselves to their 
 environment In any case, adjustment seems to have 
 no meaning unless we presuppose some ideal form of 
 adjustment, some end that is consciously or uncon- 
 1 C/. Pro! Alexander's Moral Order and Progress, pp. 2/1-3.
 
 70 THE STANDARD AS PERFECTION. 24! 
 
 sciously sought But if so, then it is surely rather with 
 the idea of this end that we ought to start than with 
 the mere idea of the process of adjustment, in which 
 the end is presupposed. Though it seems natural to 
 begin at the beginning in our explanation and move 
 on, through the process, to the end ; yet since in this 
 case it is the end by which the process is determined, 
 it is rather at the end that we ought to begin. x 
 
 7. VIEWS OF OTHER EVOLUTIONISTS. Mr. Spencer's 
 theory is distinguished from that of most other writers 
 of the evolutionist school by the distinctness with 
 which he recognises an ultimate and absolute end to 
 which conduct is directed. Although he begins his 
 explanation from below, from the beginning, from the 
 simplest forms of life, he yet leads up to the concep- 
 tion of an absolute end. Hence he insists on the 
 need of treating Ethics from a teleological point 
 of view * ; and indeed carries his conception of an 
 ultimate end so far that he even propounds the idea 
 of an absolute system of Ethics, not relating to the 
 present world at all, but rather to a world in which 
 the adjustment to environment shall have been com- 
 pletely brought about.' Most other evolutionists have 
 repudiated this absolute Ethics,-* and have also avoided 
 the statement of any absolute end to which we are 
 moving. Thus, Mr. Leslie Stephen seems to content 
 
 1 For a more complete discussion of Spencer's doctrine, see Sor- 
 ley's Ethics of Naturalism, especially pp. 303-220, Alexander's Moral 
 Order and Progress, pp. 266-277, Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, pp, 
 136-159, and Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, pp. 67-78, and pp. 142-1461 
 
 * Data of Ethics, pp. 304-5, 
 
 * See Dr. Sidgwick's account of this, History of Ethics,?. 236. 
 
 * See, for instance, Stephen's Science of Ethics, p-43^ Alexander'* 
 Moral Order and Progress, p. 270. 
 
 *6
 
 242 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. V. 
 
 himself with the idea of health or efficiency. " A moral 
 rule is a statement of a condition of social welfare." 1 
 Virtue means efficiency with a view to the maintenance 
 of social equilibrium. 2 This theory does not require 
 any view of an ultimate end to which society is mov- 
 ing ; but simply takes society as it finds it, and regards 
 its preservation and equilibrium as the end to be aimed 
 at. 3 Prof. Alexander adopts a view which is sub- 
 stantially the same. Thus he says,* "An act or person 
 is measured by a certain standard or criterion of con- 
 duct, which has been called the moral ideal. This 
 moral ideal is an adjusted order of conduct, which is 
 based upon contending inclinations and establishes 
 an equilibrium between them. Goodness is nothing 
 but this adjustment in the equilibrated whole." This 
 view of Ethics bears a close relation to the doctrine of 
 the development of animal life which was set forth by 
 Darwin. According to Darwin's view, the develop- 
 ment of animal species takes place by means of a 
 ri struggle for existence, "in which " the fittest " survive. 
 This process is commonly referred to as one of "nat- 
 ural selection." In the same way, the view of Mr. 
 Stephen and Prof. Alexander is that in the moral life 
 there is a process of natural selection in which the 
 most efficient, or the most perfectly equilibrated type 
 of conduct is preserved. The connection between 
 
 1 Science of Ethics, p. 4501 8 Ibid., pp. 79-81, &c. 
 
 Cf. the statement of Mr. Stephen's theory in Sidgwick's History 
 of Ethics, p. 257. Of course, on such a view, any actual state of 
 society is regarded as being only partly in equilibrium ; and the end 
 aimed at may be said to be a condition of perfect equilibrium. But 
 the writers referred to do not attempt to give any positive account ol 
 what would be involved in such an equilibrium. 
 
 * Moral Order and Progress, p. 399,
 
 5.] THE STANDARD AS PERFECTION. 243 
 
 this theory and that of Darwin has been well worked 
 out by Prof. Alexander in a recent article on ' ' Natural 
 Selection in Morals " ' ; and as this seems to me to 
 contain perhaps the best summary statement that we 
 have in English a of the attempt to explain morality 
 from below, it may be worth while to indicate briefly 
 its general scope and gist. 
 
 8. NATURAL SELECTION IN MORALS. "Natural Selec- 
 tion, " says Mr. Alexander, 3 " is a name for the process 
 by which different species with characteristic structures 
 contend for supremacy, and one prevails and becomes 
 relatively permanent." In the case of animal life the 
 struggle is primarily one between different individuals 
 or sets of individuals, some of which die out, while 
 the "more fit " survive. It is not exactly so in morals. 
 "The war of natural selection is carried on in human 
 affairs not against weaker or incompatible individuals, 
 but against their ideals or modes of life. It does not 
 suffer any mode of life to prevail or persist but one 
 which is compatible with social welfare."-* What 
 happens in the animal world is that certain individuals 
 or sets of individuals happen to be born with peculiar 
 natural gifts. These gifts turn out to be such as make 
 them more fit to survive than other individuals ; and 
 accordingly they do survive, and transmit their char- 
 acteristics to their descendants, while their less favoured 
 
 1 International Journal of Ethics, vol. ii., No. 4 (July, 1882), pp. 400- 
 439. Cf. also Prof. Alexander's Moral Order and Progress, Book III., 
 chap, iv., where the same point is brought out 
 
 * An even more extreme instance of an attempt to explain morality 
 from below, and on very similar lines, will be found in a recent Ger- 
 man work entitled Einleitungin die Moralwisscnschaft by Dr. Georg 
 SimmeL 
 
 Loc. Cit,, p. 431. Ibid., p. 428.
 
 244 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. V. 
 
 rivals die out. In the case of morals, however, we 
 are dealing "not with animals as such, but with 
 minds." 1 In such cases "we have something of the 
 following kind. A person arises (or a few persons) 
 whose feelings, modified by more or less deliberate 
 reflection, incline him to a new course of conduct 
 He dislikes cruelty or discourtesy, or he objects to see- 
 ing women with inferior freedom, or to the unlimited 
 opportunity of intoxication. He may stand alone and 
 with only a few friends to support him. His proposal 
 may excite ridicule or scorn or hatred ; and if he is a 
 great reformer, he may endure hardship and obloquy, 
 or even death at the hands of the great body of persons 
 whom he offends. By degrees his ideas spread more 
 and more ; people discover that they have similar 
 leanings ; they are persuaded by him ; their previous 
 antagonism to him is replaced by attachment to the 
 new mode of conduct, the new political institution. 
 The new ideas gather every day fresh strength, until 
 at last they occupy the minds of a majority of persons, 
 or even of nearly all."* " Persuasion and education, 
 in fact, without destruction, replace here the process 
 of propagation of its own species and destruction of 
 the rival ones, by which in the natural world species 
 become numerically strong and persistent. " " Persua- 
 sion corresponds to the extermination of the rivals"; 
 for "the victory of mind over mind consists in persua- 
 sion." 3 Thus, then, the origin of moral ideals, like the 
 origin of species, is to be explained by a process of nat- 
 ural selection. 
 
 9. NEED OF TELEOLOGY. Now there can be no 
 
 Loc. d t, p. 414. * Ibid., p, 430,
 
 9-] THE STANDARD AS PERFECTION. 245 
 
 doubt that all this is very suggestive and instructive ; 
 but if it is to be taken as a complete account of 
 the moral ideal, it labours under a fatal defect. It is 
 a mere natural history of the growth of the moral life. 
 Now in dealing with animal life we may be content 
 with a mere natural history. In this case we do not 
 want to know much more than the nature of the 
 species that exist and that have existed, and the cir- 
 cumstances that have led them to survive or perish. 
 We are not much interested to inquire what right man 
 has to extirpate the wolf, or how we are to justify the 
 extermination of the mammoth or the survival of the 
 ape. We are not specially interested in the relative values 
 of different species of animal life. But it is just with the 
 question of value that Ethics is concerned. We wish 
 to know the ground of preference of one kind of con- 
 duct over another ; and it is no solution of this problem 
 to say that the one kind has succeeded in driving out 
 the other. This, indeed, is partly admitted by Mr. Alex- 
 ander himself. "A new plan of life," he says, "is 
 not made good because it succeeds ; its success is the 
 stamp, the imprimatur affixed to it by the course of 
 history, the sign that it is good." * But this admission 
 is of little value ; for when he is asked what it is, then, 
 that makes it good, what is the common characteristic 
 that makes ideals morally valuable, he can only answer 
 "that that common characteristic consists in that such 
 a plan of life is adapted to the conditions of existence ; 
 that under it the society reacts without friction upon 
 
 1 Loc. cit., p. 418. Sometimes, I think, Mr. Alexander forgets this. 
 Thus, in his Moral Order and Progress, p. 307, he says " Evil is 
 timply that which has been rejected and defeated in the struggle 
 with the good"
 
 246 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. v 
 
 its surroundings, or, as I should prefer to say, that in 
 the conditions in which it is placed society can with 
 this ideal so live that no part of it shall encroach upon 
 the rest, that the society can be in equilibrium with 
 itself." f But why should we desire that society should 
 be in equilibrium with itself? What is it that makes 
 this condition valuable to us? This is the question 
 which we are forced to ask ; and it is a similar question 
 that recurs in connection with the view of Mr. Spencer, 
 and with all similar theories. These writers answer 
 questions of natural history instead of questions of 
 Ethics.* What they say may throw considerable light 
 on the way in which the moral life has developed, but 
 does not answer the question Why are we to choose 
 that life ? Why, we may ask, for instance, should we 
 not seek to disturb the equilibrium of society, instead 
 of promoting it? The answer to this could only be 
 given by showing that that equilibrium is a good. 
 
 * Ibid., p. 4191 Cf. also Prof. Alexander's article on " The Idea of 
 Value," in Mind, vol. L, No. i (Jan., 1892), especially pp. 44-48. 
 
 a This point is very fully brought out in Sorley's Ethics of Natural- 
 ism, Part II., chap, ix A short passage may here be quoted 
 (pp. 270-1). "A man might quite reasonably ask why he should 
 adopt as maxims of conduct the laws seen to operate in nature. 
 The end, in this way, is not made to follow from the natural function 
 of man. It is simply a mode in which the events of the world occur ; 
 and we must, therefore, give a reason why it should be adopted as 
 his end by the individual agent To him there may be no sufficient 
 ground of inducement to become ' a self-conscious agent in the 
 evolution of the universe.' From the purely evolutionist point of 
 view, no definite attempt has been made to solve the difficulty. It 
 seems really to go no deeper than Dr. Johnson's reply to Boswell, 
 when the latter plagued him to give a reason for action : ' Sir,' said 
 he, in an animated tone, 'it is driving on the system of life."" Cf. 
 Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics, p. 83, Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, 
 pp. 149-15^
 
 10.] THE STANDARD AS PERFECTION. 247 
 
 Similarly, we may ask Why may we not set our- 
 selves in opposition to the stream of development 
 which Mr. Spencer traces ? Here again the answer to 
 this question must be found by showing that the stream 
 of development is leading to something which we re- 
 cognize as good something that can serve as an ideal 
 for our moral nature. If this can be shown, then we 
 may start from that ideal. That ideal then becomes 
 the explanation of the process, instead of the process 
 being an explanation of it. We go through the pro- 
 cess of development because we are seeking that ideal. 
 The end, and not the beginning, is thus taken as the 
 principle of explanation. x 
 
 10. EXPLANATION BY END. Even in the case of the 
 development of animal life it is not at all certain that 
 the idea of teleology ought not to be introduced. 
 Indeed even in Mr. Spencer's view of evolution there 
 is a kind of teleology. The whole life of animals is 
 regarded as a continual struggle after a perfect adjust- 
 ment. That is the ideal by which the whole process is 
 explained. And it is possible that on a deeper view of 
 evolution the meaning of the process might be seen to 
 have a still more profoundly teleological significance. 
 So at least Emerson thought 
 
 " Striving to be man, the worm 
 Mounts through all the spires of form." 
 
 So also Aristotle and Hegel thought.* But however 
 
 1 This seems to be the essential point in the argument of Prof. 
 Huxley's famous Romanes Lecture (Evolution and Ethics). But 
 Prof. Huxley partly obscures the point by drawing an unreal anti- 
 thesis between the processes of nature and the activities of the 
 moral life. Cf. also Principal Lloyd Morgan's Habit and Instinct, 
 pp. 271 and 335, and Seth's Man's Place in the Cosmos, I. 
 
 It is still more remarkable (though perhaps not so consistent) t
 
 4.8 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. v. 
 
 this may be with regard to animal life, and to the life 
 of nature generally, there can be no doubt that we 
 must apply teleological ideas in Ethics. Indeed, as 
 we have seen, this is explicitly stated by Mr. Herbert 
 Spencer himself. But if this is the case, then the at- 
 tempt to explain the moral life from behind cannot be 
 of much avail We must explain it rather by what 
 lies in front of us, by the ideal or end that we have 
 in view. How this may be done, may be indicated 
 by a brief reference to the work of the most dis- 
 tinguished of those thinkers in recent times who have 
 attempted it the late Professor T. H. Green. 
 
 11. GREEN'S VIEW OF ETHICS. Green's doctrine is 
 stated in his great work entitled Prolegomena to Ethics, 
 probably the most considerable contribution to ethical 
 science that has been made in England during the 
 present century. 1 Green taught that the essential 
 element in the nature of man is the rational or spiritual 
 principle within him. Man has appetite, as animals 
 have, and, like them, he has sensations and mental 
 images; but these, and everything else in man's 
 nature, are modified by the fact that he has reason. 
 His appetites are not mere appetites : his sensations 
 are not mere sensations. In his appetites there is 
 always more or less explicitly present the conscious- 
 ness of an end i'. e. they are desires and not mere appe- 
 tites. * In his sensations there is always more or less 
 
 find such a pronounced materialist as Dlihring objecting strongly 
 to the Darwinian attempt to explain evolution by the mere struggle 
 for existence, and urging the adoption of a more teleological view 
 See his Cursus der Philosophic, II. iil 
 
 * The account of Green's doctrine contained in Sidgwick's History 
 qf Ethics (pp. 259-260) is unhappily very inadequate. 
 
 1 1 may lay *h3* Green seems to me to exaggerate the extent to
 
 11.] THE STANDARD AS PERFECTION. 249 
 
 explicitly present the element of knowledge :'. e. they 
 are perceptions and not mere sensations. This is due 
 to the fact that man is rational, self-conscious, spiritual. 
 This is the essential fact with regard to man's nature. 
 Green points out, indeed, that even in animal life, and 
 even in inanimate nature, we must assume the presence 
 of a rational principle just as Mr. Spencer points out 
 that even in animal life there is present the principle of 
 adjustment. But in nature the presence of this prin- 
 ciple is implicit. We must believe that it is there, but 
 it is concealed or imperfectly manifested. In man it is 
 explicit ; or, at any rate, it is becoming explicit. And 
 the significance of the moral life consists in the con- 
 stant endeavour to make this principle more and more 
 explicit to bring out more and more completely our 
 rational, self-conscious, spiritual nature. How exactly 
 this is to be done, Green admits, it is not easy to 
 answer, just because our rational nature is not yet 
 completely developed. The moral life is to be ex- 
 
 which animal appetites are transmuted in human consciousness. 
 Perhaps, however, my own statement above (Book I., chap, i., 3) 
 contains an exaggeration on the opposite side. At any rate, the main 
 point here is that the essence of man consists in his rational nature, 
 not in anything that he has in common with a mere animal (if there 
 is any mere animal). What exactly is involved in the consciousness 
 of the higher forms of animal life, is a difficult question. It seems 
 absurd to deny them perception. It is hard even to suppose that 
 they are without perceptual images. Else how does the ox know 
 his master's crib ? How does the bird construct its nest ? There 
 seems to be involved in such cases not only an apprehension of the 
 object before them but an anticipatory image of what is about to be. 
 And indeed this seems to be required even for Darwin's earthworms 
 {Vegetable Mould, chap. ii.). But all this lies beyond our present sub- 
 ject. Reference may be made to Lloyd Morgan's Animal I.ije and 
 Intelligence (especially chapter ix.), to Wundt's Human and Animal 
 Psychology,'^. 350-366, and to Stout's Manual, pp. 264-266.
 
 250 ETHICS. [BK. IL, CH. v. 
 
 planned by its end ; but as we have not reached the 
 end, we cannot, in any complete form, give the ex- 
 planation. Still, we can to a considerable extent see 
 in what way our rational nature has been so far de- 
 veloped, and in what direction we may proceed to 
 develop it more fully. 
 
 This is a brief statement of Green's point of view ; 
 and it certainly appears to furnish us with an answer 
 to the question with which we set out viz. the ques- 
 tion how we are to determine which is the higher and 
 which is the lower among our universes of desire. 
 Green's answer is the highest universe is that which is 
 most completely rational. The meaning of this, how- 
 ever, must be somewhat more fully considered, in 
 relation to the point of view that we have already tried 
 to develop. 
 
 12. THE TRUE SELF. We have seen that there are 
 a great number of universes within which a man may 
 live. In some of these men live only for moments at 
 a time : in others they live habitually. Some of them 
 are universes within which no abiding satisfaction can 
 be found. The universe of mere animal enjoyment 
 is of this nature. Its pleasures soon pall upon the 
 appetite. In others we find that we have a more per- 
 manent resting-place. Now the nature of the universe 
 within which a man habitually lives constitutes, as we 
 have seen, his character or self. If he chances to be 
 led into some other universe by a sudden impulse 
 or unexpected temptation, the man scarcely considers 
 himself to be responsible for his actions within that 
 universe. He says that he was not himself when he 
 acted so. He was not within his own universe. 
 
 But there is no limited universe within which we can
 
 12.] THE STANDARD AS PERFECTION. 2$ I 
 
 find permanent satisfaction. As we grow older, we get 
 crusted over with habits, and go on, with little misgiv- 
 ing, within the universe to which we have grown 
 accustomed. But if the universe is an imperfect one, 
 we are not without occasional pricks of conscience 
 i. e. we sometimes become aware of a higher universe 
 within which we ought to be living. 
 
 "Just when we are safest, there's a sunset-touch, 
 A fancy from a flower-bell, some one's death, 
 A chorus-ending from Euripides 
 And that's enough for fifty hopes and fears, 
 As old and new at once as nature's sell, 
 To rap and knock and enter in our soul." 1 
 
 On such occasions we begin to feel that even in the life 
 that we ordinarily live we are not ourselves. There is 
 a want of permanence in our habitual universe, just as 
 there is in those into which we find ourselves occa- 
 sionally drifted by passion and impulse. Just as we 
 do not feel satisfied in these, but escape from them 
 as rapidly as we can, and declare that we were not 
 ourselves when we were in them ; so we become con- 
 scious at times that even in our habitual lives there is 
 something unsatisfying, and if it were not for the frost 
 of custom we would make our escape from these also, 
 and declare that in them also we are not ourselves. 
 Where, then, is the universe within which we should 
 find an abiding satisfaction ? What is the true self ? 
 
 The true self is what is perhaps best described as the 
 rational self. It is the universe that we occupy in our 
 moments of deepest wisdom and insight. To say fully 
 what the content of this universe is, would no doubt, 
 as Green points out, 2 be impossible. The content of 
 
 1 Browning Bishop Blougram's Apology. 
 * Prolegomena to Ethics, 288, p. 3101
 
 252 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. v. 
 
 the universe of rational insight is as wide as the uni- 
 verse of actual fact. To live completely in that uni- 
 verse would be to understand completely the world in 
 which we live and our relations to it, and to act con- 
 stantly in the light of that understanding. This we 
 cannot hope to do. All that we can do is to endeavour 
 to promote this understanding more and more in our- 
 selves and others, and to act more and more in a way 
 that is consistent with the promotion of this understand- 
 ing. So to live is to be truly ourselves. t 
 
 13. THE REAL MEANING OF SELF-CONSISTENCY. From 
 this point of view we are better able to appreciate the 
 real significance of the Kantian principle, that the 
 supreme law of morals is to be self-consistent. This 
 law, as we pointed out, seemed to supply us with a 
 mere form without matter. It is not so, however, if 
 we interpret the statement to mean not merely that we 
 are to be self -consistent, but that we are to be consistent 
 with the self i. e. with the true self. For this principle 
 has a content, though the content is not altogether easy 
 to discover. Kant's error, we may say, consisted in 
 this, that he understood the term Reason in a purely 
 abstract way. He opposed it to all the particular con- 
 tent of our desires ; whereas, in reality, reason is rela- 
 tive to the whole world which it interprets. The uni- 
 verse of rational insight is the universe in which the 
 whole world including all our desires appears in its 
 true relations. To occupy the point of view of reason, 
 
 1 For some criticisms on the idea of self-realization, see the valu- 
 able article by Mr. A. E. Taylor in the International Journal of 
 Ethics, Vol. VI., no. 3. Mr. Taylor's objections do not seem, how- 
 ever, to bear upon the theory as explained above and as developed 
 iB the following Book
 
 I4-] THE STANDARD AS PERFECTION. 2$$ 
 
 therefore, is not to withdraw from all our desires, and 
 occupy the point of view of mere formal self-consist- 
 ency ; it is rather to place all our desires in their right 
 relations to one another. The universe of rational in- 
 sight is a universe into which they can all enter, and 
 in which they all find their true places. Dirt has been 
 defined as " matter in the wrong place " : so moral evil 
 may be said to consist simply in the misplacement of 
 desire. The meaning of this will, it is hoped, become 
 somewhat clearer as we proceed 
 
 14. THE REAL MEANING OF HAPPINESS. Just as we 
 are now better able to appreciate the significance of 
 the categorical imperative of self-consistency, so we 
 ought now to be able to understand more fully the true 
 significance of the principle of happiness. The error 
 in the conception of happiness, as formerly interpreted, 
 lay in its being thought of simply as the gratification 
 of each single desire, or of the greatest possible sum 
 of desires. We now see that the end is to be found 
 rather in the systematisation of desire. Now happi- 
 ness, in the true sense of the word, as distinguished 
 from transient pleasures, consists just in the conscious- 
 ness of the realisation of such a systematic content. 
 It is the form of feeling which accompanies the har- 
 monious adjustment of the various elements in our 
 lives within an ideal unity. Happiness, therefore, in 
 this sense, though not, properly speaking, the end at 
 which we aim, is an inseparable and essential element 
 in its attainment. 1 
 
 15. TRANSITION TO APPLIED ETHICS. We have now 
 
 1 It is in this sense, as Spinoza says, that " happiness [beatitude] 
 Is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself," i. e., it is an essential 
 aspect in the attainment of the right point of view.
 
 254 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. V. 
 
 seen, in a general way, what the nature of the moral 
 ideal is, and how the various imperfect conceptions of 
 this ideal find their place within what seems to be the 
 true one. We now see, in short, at least in some de- 
 gree, what is the true significance of the ethical ought. 
 We see that, if it is to be described as an " imperative" 
 at all, it is at least not to be thought of, as it is apt at 
 first to be, as a command imposed upon us from with- 
 out. It is rather to be regarded as the voice of the true 
 self within us, passing judgment upon the self as it 
 appears in its incomplete development. Conscience, 
 from this point of view, may be said to be simply the 
 sense that we are not ourselves ; and the voice of duty 
 is the voice that says, "To thine own self be true." 
 
 But statements of this sort are still apt to seem rather 
 empty and unmeaning, unless we can bring them into 
 some sort of relationship to the concrete content of 
 life. Accordingly, what we have now to do is to con- 
 sider the way in which the concrete moral life may be 
 interpreted in the light of the general principle which 
 has now been laid down. This, of course, can only 
 be done in such a book as this, in the most cursory 
 and superficial fashion. But some indication of the 
 kind of way in which it would have to be done in a 
 more comprehensive work, may at least be found sug- 
 gestive and helpful. Before we proceed to this, how- 
 ever, it is necessary to consider the exact sense in which 
 ethical principles are capable of application to the con- 
 tent of the practical life. This is the subject of the 
 following chapter.
 
 I.] HIE MORAL STANDARD., 255 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE AUTHORITY OF THE MORAL STANDARD. 
 
 1. THE GENERAL PROBLEM OF AUTHORITY. In 
 considering the nature of the moral standard, we have 
 had to deal incidentally with the character of the 
 authority which according to different theories is 
 claimed for it. But it seems desirable now to add 
 something on this particular point. As the moral 
 standard is one that claims the absolute devotion of 
 the human will, it is evident that its authority must 
 be recognized as supreme and unquestionable ; and 
 we have accordingly already felt ourselves to be 
 justified in criticizing certain views of the moral 
 standard on the ground that they provided no adequate 
 motive for obedience to the principles that are involved 
 in it. This defect appears, for instance, in the view 
 which rests moral obligation on the law of God ; since 
 the mere might of a supreme being could not be 
 accepted as a sufficient ground for voluntary obedience. 
 The same defect appears, in a somewhat different form, 
 in the theory that appeals simply to the process of 
 evolution ; since it is of the very essence of the 
 moral life to oppose itself, if necessary, to the natural 
 tendencies of things. The consideration of such ob- 
 jections, however, leads us to inquire more definitely 
 what is the nature of the authority on which moral 
 principles must be based.
 
 2 $6 ETHICS. [BK. u., CH. vi/ 
 
 2. DiFFEREiNT KINDS OF AUTHORITY. In dealing 
 with this subject, it may be convenient to recur to the 
 distinction that has already been drawn between is, 
 must, and ought. A certain kind of authority may be 
 said to lie in each. Even in an "is" there is often a 
 compelling power. " Facts " are said to be " stubborn 
 things." Carlyle was particularly fond of emphasizing 
 the absurdity of contending against actualities. It 
 would be futile for human beings to endeavour to 
 train themselves to walk constantly on their heads; 
 and many other actions, not on a surface view quite so 
 absurd, may be equally impossible. If a man offends 
 persistently against the general conditions of health, 
 his sin is sure to find him out; and such sin may 
 be described as a failure to recognize the existing 
 circumstances. But even in such instances the com- 
 pelling power is perhaps more properly to be described 
 as a "must" than as a simple "is." We do not in 
 such instances perform actions, or abstain from actions, 
 in mere obedience to a natural tendency, as a stone 
 falls to the ground, or as an animal follows its instincts. 
 Rather we do or abstain, in general, with a certain 
 foresight of the inconvenient consequences that would 
 otherwise result. We recognise that we must or that 
 we must not. We do not simply feel impelled. A 
 better illustration of the operation of the simple " is " 
 in human action might be found in certain conventional 
 practices in rules of fashion, local customs, profes- 
 sional etiquette, and the like. The " correct thing " in 
 such cases means little more than what the " compact 
 majority " does. Particular people follow the custom, 
 as a sheep follows its leader. They do things simply
 
 2.] THE MORAL STANDARD. 257 
 
 because they are done. But even in such cases it is 
 probable that there is nearly always a more or less 
 explicit consciousness of some ground for the action. 
 It is done, it may be, from fear of public opinion, or 
 from a conviction that eccentricity is undesirable. In 
 the former case there is a " must," in the latter an 
 "ought." On the whole, a careful consideration of 
 such cases seems to show that, in all action that 
 is distinctively human (as opposed to animal impulse 
 or instinct), one or other of these (a "must" or an 
 " ought ") is the compelling force. 
 
 Now, taking the "must" and the "ought" as the 
 two great moving forces in human action, there might 
 be some convenience in limiting the uae of the term 
 "authority," at least in its ethical application, to the 
 latter. It is in this sense that the term is chiefly used 
 by Bishop Butler, who has perhaps done more than 
 any one else to give it a clear meaning in ethical 
 literature. 1 But we must remember that the term is 
 also commonly used with reference to the "is" and 
 the "must," as well as the "ought" An appeal to 
 " authority " means sometimes simply an appeal to 
 the majority of views that have been expressed on 
 a particular point ; though even in this case there is 
 generally an implied conviction that the people whose 
 views are referred to have some claim to be heard, 
 that there are reasons why their opinions ought to be 
 accepted as the most correct, or as the most likely 
 to be correct, and that, if their views diverge, they 
 should be weighed as well as counted Again, in law 
 
 1 Butler's second Strmon may be referred to as the locus dasricui on 
 this point. 
 Bth.
 
 2 $8 ETHICS. [BK. II., CH. Vt. 
 
 and politics, the "authority" for an action may simply 
 refer to the force by which it is accompanied, or the 
 penalties which can be inflicted in connection with it. 
 But even legal and political powers are seldom regarded 
 as authoritative without some degree of conviction that 
 they represent, on the whole, justice as well as might. 
 In strictly moral matters, at any rate, it seems clear 
 that we cannot recognize any authority that is merely 
 of the nature of force. But the more fully this is 
 recognized, the more urgent does it become to ascertain 
 the exact nature of the binding power that is contained 
 in the moral standard. 
 
 3. VARIOUS VIEWS OF MORAL AUTHORITY. We 
 have already noticed the chief theories of the moral 
 standard, and, in doing so, we have incidentally seen 
 what is the kind of authority that is claimed by each. 
 But we must now proceed to consider the different 
 views on this particular point more definitely. 
 
 Broadly speaking, we may say that the authority 
 claimed for the moral standard is either that of an 
 external law, that of an inner law, or that which is 
 contained in the idea of an end. The first is seen 
 in views that refer us to a law of God, a law of Nature, 
 or a law of some political or social power. The second 
 appears in the doctrine of a law of conscience or reason. 
 The third is found in the various doctrines that set up 
 some form of pleasure or perfection as the end of action. 
 But the nature of the authority does not always cor- 
 respond to the nature of the standard. It is possible 
 to maintain that the criterion of right is of one kind, 
 while the power that binds us to its pursuit is of 
 ano;her. Thus, Paley r garded pleasure as the end
 
 4-j THE MORAL STANDARD. 259 
 
 of action, but set up the will of God as the supreme 
 authority for its pursuit. And Utilitarians in general 
 distinguish the ultimate end from the sanctions which 
 bind us to follow it. Similar divergences may also be 
 found, though perhaps in a less degree, in some other 
 schools. Thus, Shaftesbury appears to have taken the 
 well-being of society as the end, but the " moral sense " 
 as the authority. Accordingly, it seems worth while 
 at this point o consider the different theories of 
 authority a little more in detail. 
 
 4. THE AUTHORITY OF LAW. We have already in- 
 dicated the chief stages in the growth of the view which 
 rests the authority of the moral principle on some form 
 ot external law a view which has not much support 
 from ethical theory, but a great deal from popular con- 
 viction. We have traced the growth from customary 
 obligation, through state law, to the law of a divine 
 commandment. But there is probably no type of 
 ethical theory in modern times that would seek to rest 
 moral authority exclusively on any such external sources. 
 There have, however, been several attempts in modern 
 ethics, and especially in modern English ethics, to rest 
 moral obligation to a large extent upon a legal basis. 
 In recent times this tendency has been specially charac- 
 teristic of the Utilitarian school, with whom the so-called 
 "Sanctions" of morality have played a very important 
 pnrt. These Sanctions, whether in the rudimentary 
 form conceived by Paley, or in the more elaborate form 
 set forth by Bentham and Mill, are external forces, 
 carrying an authority of that non-moral kind which 
 v c have characterised as a " must." Some special 
 cor; H nfirn of ht-s.- will here be in p'ace.
 
 260 ETHICS. [BK. IL, CH. vi. 
 
 5. THE SANCTIONS OF MORALITY. This term has 
 been introduced into Ethics in consequence of the 
 strongly jural way in which the subject has frequently 
 been treated. 1 A sanction means primarily a ratifica- 
 tion. 1 Hence it comes to be applied to that which 
 ratifies or gives force to the laws of a state i.e. the 
 punishment attached to their violation. The meaning 
 of the term has been extended, chiefly by Utilitarian 
 writers, to anything that gives force .to the laws of 
 Duty t.e. to the motives by which men are induced 
 to fulfil their obligations. According to the Utilitarian 
 writers, the only motives are fear of pain and hope 
 of pleasure. And the pains and pleasures may present 
 themselves in a variety of forms. Thus, there is 
 frequently a physical pain as a consequence of the 
 violation of Duty. Again, there are the pains of social 
 disapproval, and the pleasures of the approbation of 
 our fellow-men. The pains of Hell and the pleasures 
 of Heaven have also, at certain periods of human 
 history, provided motives to right conduct. Now, if 
 the view of Ethics indicated in the present handbook 
 is to be accepted, all this is not of much ethical im- 
 portance. The right motive to good conduct is the 
 desire to realize the highest end of human life ; 8 and 
 
 1 Cf. Sidpwick's History of Ethics, pp. 8-IO. 
 
 1 E.g. " The Pragmatic Sanction." It is derived from the Latin 
 sanctio, and means primarily " the act of binding," or " that which 
 serves to bind a mau." Cf. Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legis- 
 lation, chap, iii., note to ii. 
 
 * It is scarcely necessary to repeat that this motive need not be 
 consciously present. (Cf. above, p. 197.) In a particular good action 
 the motive is as a rule simply the interest in some particular good 
 to be achieved. But the ultimate justification of our interest in *
 
 5-] T I IE MORAL STANDARD. 26 1 
 
 what this is we have already seen. That we may be 
 moved to act rightly in other ways is a fact rather 
 of psychological, historical, or sociological, than ot 
 strictly ethical interest. It is also, no doubt, a fact 
 of some importance for jurisprudence, education, 1 and 
 practical politics. Since, however, the consideration 
 of these external motives plays a prominent part in 
 the Utilitarian theory of morals, some further remarks 
 on this point seem to be called for. 
 
 If the theory of Universalistic Hedonism is accepted, 
 and if this theory is made to rest on the basis of 
 Psychological Hedonism, it becomes important to con- 
 sider the motives by which the individual is led to seek 
 the general happiness. His primary desire, according 
 to this view, is for his own greatest happiness ; and he 
 can be induced to seek the general happiness only by 
 being led to see that the conduct which leads to " the 
 greatest happiness of the greatest number " is in the 
 long run identical with that which leads to his own 
 greatest happiness. Now it is chiefly by means of the 
 Sanctions that this identity is shown. As Bentham 
 puts it, 1 the general happiness is the final cause of 
 human action ; but the efficient cause for any given 
 individual is the anticipation of his own pleasure or 
 
 particular good consists in the fact that it is an element in the general 
 good ; and our interest in a particular good requires frequently to be 
 modified and corrected by reference to this. 
 
 1 Sanctions, as already noted (above, p. 312), are of use as helping 
 to form habits of goo^ willing and good conduct ; though this use 
 of them should be gradually decreased till the necessity for them 
 disappears. Cf. Miss Gilliland's paper on " Pleasure and Pain in 
 Education," pp. 301-3. 
 
 * Principles of Morals and leg 'slation, chap. iii.
 
 262 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. vi. 
 
 pain. "The happiness of the individuals, of whom a 
 community is composed, that is, their pleasures and 
 their security, 1 is the end and the sole end which the 
 legislator ought to have in view ; the sole standard, 
 in conformity to which each individual ought, as 
 far as depends upon the legislator, to be made to 
 fashion his behaviour. But whether it be this or 
 anything else that is to be done, there is nothing 
 by which a man can ultimately be made to do it, 
 but either pain or pleasure." Accordingly, Bentham 
 proceeds to enumerate the various kinds of pain 
 and pleasure which may be made to serve as motives 
 to the adoption of those forms of conduct which it 
 is desirable, with a view to the general happiness, 
 that men should be induced to follow. These various 
 kinds of pain and pleasure are what he calls the 
 Sanctions. 
 
 Bentham enumerates * four classes of such Sanctions, 
 which he calls the physical, the political, the moral, and 
 the religious. If the pleasure or pain comes simply in 
 the ordinary course of nature, and is not attached to 
 our actions by the will of any individual, such a source 
 of motives is called a physical sanction. The pains 
 following from drunkenness are an example. It, on 
 
 1 Bentham does not, ot course, mean that the principle of security 
 is to be regarded as an independent end in addition to pleasure. He 
 only mentions it as the indi.spensable condition of the certainty, dura- 
 tion, and fecundity of our pleasures. Cf. his Principles of the Civil 
 Code, Part II., chap. vii. Of all the principles subordinate to utility, 
 there was none to which he attached so much importance as to that 
 of security. 
 
 * Principles of Morals and Legislation, chap. iii. Cf. also Principles 
 if Legislation, chap, vii., and Sidgwick.'s History of tAics, pp. 240-245.
 
 $ 5-] THE MORAL STANDARD. 263 
 
 the other hand, the pleasure or pain is attached to an 
 action by the will of a sovereign ruler or government, 
 it is called a political sanction ; as in the case of 
 ordinary judicial punishment. If it is attached to an 
 action by the will of individuals who are not in a 
 position of authority, it is called a moral (popular) 
 sanction ; as when a man is " boycotted " or " loses 
 caste." Finally, if it is attached to an action by the 
 will of a supernatural power, it is called a religious 
 sanction ; as in the case of Heaven and Hell, or of the 
 penalties inflicted by the Roman Catholic Church as 
 the representative of the Divine will on earth. It may 
 be worth while to give Bentham's own examples. 1 
 " A man's goods, or his person, are consumed by fire. 
 If this happened to him by what is called an accident, 
 it was a calamity: 2 if by reason of his own imprudence 
 (for instance, from his neglecting to put his candle out), 
 it may be styled a punishment of the physical sanction ; 
 if it happened to him by the sentence of the political 
 magistrate, a punishment belonging to the political 
 sanction ; that is, what is commonly called a punish- 
 ment : if for want of any assistance which his neighbour 
 withheld from him out of some dislike to his moral 
 character, a punishment of the moral sanction : if by 
 an immediate act of God's displeasure, manifested 
 on account of some sin committed by him, or through 
 any distraction of mind, occasioned by the dread 
 
 1 Principles of Morals and Legislation, chap, iii., ix. 
 
 * In this case, of course, it is not a sanction at all ; since it is not 
 regarded as a result of any particular kind of conduct, and consequently 
 does not serve as an inducement to the avoidance of any particular 
 kind of conduct
 
 264 ETHICS. [BK. IL, CH. vi. 
 
 of such displeasure, a punishment of the religious 
 sanction." 
 
 J. S. Mill accepted all these sanctions, but character- 
 ized them all as "external"; and held that we ought to 
 recognize, in addition to them, the " internal " sanction 
 of Conscience i.e. the pleasures and pains of the moral 
 sentiments. 1 All the other sanctions are to a large 
 extent " physical" Indeed, Bentham himself says : * 
 "Of these four sanctions the physical is altogether, 
 we may observe, the groundwork of the political and 
 the moral ; so is it also of the religious, in as far as the 
 latter bears relation to the present life. It is included 
 in each of those other three. This 8 may operate in any 
 case (that is, any of the pains or pleasures belonging 
 to it may operate) independently of them*: none of 
 them can operate but by means of this. In a word, 
 the powers of nature may operate of themselves ; but 
 neither the magistrate, nor men at large, 6 can operate, 
 nor is God in the case in question supposed to operate, 
 but through the powers of nature." What Mill calls 
 the " internal " sanction, on the other hand, does not 
 rest on physical conditions, but is purely psychological 
 or subjective; though the particular way in which it 
 
 1 Utilitarianism, chap, iii., p. 41 sqq. 
 
 * Principles of Morals and Ltgislation, chap, iii., xi. 
 
 * The physical sanction. 
 
 4 The other three sanctions. 
 
 * It might be urged that the moral sanction sometimes takes the 
 form simply of an expression of opinion. The fear of adverse public 
 opinion is often one of the strongest forms of this sanction. But I 
 suppose Bentham would say that even in this case the expression of 
 the opinion takes place "through the powers of nature," viz. through 
 vibrations of sound or light
 
 6.] THE MORAL STANDARD. 26$ 
 
 is developed is, no doubt, affected by the external 
 environment in which our lives are passed. 1 
 
 Though this sanction is distinguished by Mill as 
 "internal," yet, in a sense, it is just as external as the 
 others. All may be called internal, since all involve 
 the subjective experience of pain, actual or prospective. 
 On the other hand, all are external, in the sense that 
 the pain is connected with some law not definitely 
 recognised as the law of our own being. If, however, 
 Conscience is definitely regarded as the law of our 
 nature, it ceases to be merely of the nature of a 
 sanction, and becomes a real moral authority. It is 
 in this way that it is conceived, for instance, by 
 Bishop Butler. 8 
 
 6. THE AUTHORITY OF CONSCIENCE. The force of 
 conscience, from Mill's point of view, lies simply, as 
 we have seen, in its sting, in its power of making 
 itself a nuisance. The Intuitionists, on the other hand, 
 
 1 Professor Sidgwick notes {History of Ethics, p. 242, note) that even 
 Bentham, in one of his letters to Dumont, refers separately to what are 
 ordinarily called moral sentiments as " sympathetic and antipathetic 
 sanctions." He thus partly anticipated Mill. But there is no official 
 recognition of these sanctions in his published writings. The reason a 
 probably that Bentham had a supreme contempt for such sympathetic 
 and antipathetic sentiments. See his Principles of Morals and Legisla- 
 tion, chap, ii., xi, note. 
 
 2 An excellent account of the Sanctions will be found in Fowler's 
 Progressive Morality, chaps, i. and ii. Cf. also Sidgwick's Methods f 
 Ethics, Book II., chap, v., and concluding chapter ; and Muirhead's 
 Elements of Ethics, pp. 101-4. It should be observed that the use of 
 terms is not quite uniform. Bentham's Political Sanction is sometimes 
 described as the Legal Sanction ; and his Moral or Popular Sanction is 
 frequently described as the Social Sanction ; while the term " Moral 
 Sanction" is reserved for Mill's Internal Sanction. This use of the 
 terms seems preferable to Bentham's.
 
 266 ETHICS. [BK. IL, CH. vi. 
 
 represent conscience, in general, as having an authority 
 which is independent of any such power. The attitude 
 of Butler on this point is particularly striking. As we 
 have already seen, he represents man's nature as a con- 
 stitution, in which conscience is the supreme authority. 
 " Thus that principle," he says, 1 " by which we survey, 
 and either approve or disapprove our own heart, 
 temper and actions, is not only to be considered as 
 what is in its turn to have some influence which may 
 be said of every passion, of the lowest appetites but 
 likewise as being superior, as from its very nature 
 manifestly claiming superiority over all others, inso- 
 much as you cannot form a notion of this faculty, 
 conscience, without taking in judgment, direction, 
 superintendency. This is a constituent part of the 
 idea, that is, of the faculty itself; and to preside and 
 govern, from the very economy and constitution of 
 man, belongs to it. Had it strength as it has right, 
 had it power as it has manifest authority, it would 
 absolutely govern the world." " But allowing," he 
 says again, 2 "that mankind hath the rule of right 
 within himself, yet it may be asked, ' What obligations 
 are we under to attend to and follow it ? ' I answer : 
 it has been proved that man by his nature is a law to 
 himself, without the particular distinct consideration of 
 the positive sanctions of that law; the rewards and 
 punishments which we feel, and those which from the 
 light of reason we have ground to believe, are annexed 
 to it. The question then carries its own answer along 
 with it. Your obligation to obey this law is its being 
 the law of your nature. That your conscience approves 
 
 1 Sermon II. * Sermon III.
 
 6.] THE MORAL STANDARD. 267 
 
 of and attests to such a course ot action, is itself alone 
 an obligation. Conscience does not only offer itself 
 to shew us the way we should walk in, but it likewise 
 carries its own authority with it, that it is our natural 
 guide." 
 
 If, however, we ask more definitely what is the 
 nature of the authority of conscience, it seems impos*. 
 sible to give any clear account of it without reference 
 to the idea of an end. Butler himself, in seeking to 
 explain the nature of its authority, compares it with 
 that which belongs to " reasonable self-love." " Sup- 
 pose a brute creature," he says, " by any bait to be 
 allured into a snare, by which he is destroyed. He 
 plainly followed the bent of his nature, leading him to 
 gratify his appetite : there is an entire correspondence 
 between his whole nature and such an action : such 
 action therefore is natural. But suppose a man, fore- 
 seeing the same danger of certain ruin, should rush 
 into it for the sake of a present gratification, he in this 
 instance would follow his strongest desire, as did the 
 brute creature : but there would be as manifest a dis- 
 proportion between the nature of man and such an 
 action, as between the meanest work of art ; which 
 disproportion arises, not from considering the action 
 singly in itself, or in its consequences, but from com- 
 parison of it with the nature of the agent. And since 
 such an action is utterly disproportionate to the nature 
 of man, it is in the strictest and most proper sense 
 unnatural ; this word expressing that disproportion. 
 . . . Thus, without particular consideration of con- 
 science, we may have a clear conception of the superior 
 nature of one inward principle to another ; and see that
 
 268 ETHICS. [ BK. II., CH. VI. 
 
 there really is this natural superiority, quite distinct 
 from degrees of strength and prevalency." But it 
 seems clear that the authority which is claimed for 
 reasonable self-love in this instance rests on the idea 
 of an end. It would be unnatural for us simply to 
 follow our appetites and instincts, like brute beasts, 
 because we have definite ideas of ends that we pursue, 
 and know the means that may be expected to secure 
 them. If the authority of conscience is of this nature, it 
 is not the authority of a blind faculty, but the authority 
 of reason itself. This view is not definitely brought 
 out by Butler, but appears quite distinctly in Kant. 
 
 7. THE AUTHORITY OF REASON. Kant is the writer 
 who has most explicitly accepted reason as the only 
 ultimate authority in the moral life, and in this he has 
 been followed by the school of modern idealism. But 
 in reality the same authority was adopted, though in 
 a somewhat less explicit form, by nearly all the Greek 
 moralists, and especially by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, 
 and the Stoics ; and, in more modern times, by the 
 Cartesians and by some of our own British writers 
 And, in recent times, there may almost be said to be 
 a consensus of opinion that, if any ultimate authority 
 is to be found for the moral life at all, it can only be 
 found in reason. Even Utilitarianism, as represented 
 by Sidgwick, Gizycki, and others, has come round to 
 this view. The only flourishing school at the present 
 time which does not accept this position is the school 
 of biological evolution ; and this is the kind of excep- 
 tion that proves the rule, since writers of this school 
 deny in general that any ultimate authority can be 
 found for the iroral life at all. According to them,
 
 $ 8.] THE MORAL STANDARD. 269 
 
 morality has merely a de facto justification, and the 
 development of the species may transform and even 
 abolish it. Simmel, for instance, represents moral 
 principle simply as the will of the " compact majority." 
 It is the dominant tendency ot what "is," not an 
 " ought " or even a " must." A moral scepticism of 
 this kind seems to be the only real alternative to the 
 doctrine of the authority of reason. 
 
 8. THE ABSOLUTENESS OF THE MORAL AUTHORITY. 
 It is apt sometimes to seem as if the authority of the 
 moral standard becomes less absolute the more it is 
 refined and made strictly moral. A few written rules, 
 whether of a state or of some divine law-giver, seem 
 to carry a direct and indisputable authority, especially 
 if they are sanctioned by heavy penalties, such as the 
 prison or the gallows or hell fire. Hence writers who 
 are specially desirous of enforcing moral principles, 
 such as Carlyle, tend to throw them into the form of 
 divine commandments, and to emphasize the penalties 
 for their neglect. In comparison with such laws, a 
 simple injunction to do what is reasonable, because it 
 is reasonable, seems weak and ineffective. Even Kant's 
 " categorical imperative " carries no terrors with it ; for 
 the sting of conscience may be suppressed. And still 
 less does there seem to be any strong binding force in 
 such an idea of an end, as we have sought to put 
 forward in the present Manual. The realization of a 
 rational universe seems strangely remote; and, if we 
 fail to realize it, there seems no immediate prospect 
 that we shall be flogged or burnt or jeered at, or suffer 
 any serious detriment to mind or body or estate. 
 Where, then, is the authority of this standard ?
 
 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. vi. 
 
 But no one who truly realizes to himself what the 
 standard means, is likely to argue in this way. Some 
 illustrations from similar cases of development may 
 serve to show that the moral authority, in its highest 
 form, is stronger, not weaker, than it was in its more 
 primitive modes of presentment. A child v\ho is set 
 to draw simple lines under the guidance of a teacher, 
 or to learn the alphabet and elementary combinations 
 of letters, may appear to be under a strict authority, 
 in comparison with which the great artist or poet 
 enjoys unbounded licence. But is this really so ? 
 Has the word of the master anything like the con- 
 straining force on the child that the ideal of beauty 
 has on the artist or poet ? The one law, no doubt, is 
 simple and definite, and carries with it, perhaps, an 
 explicit reward or punishment. The other may be 
 hard to define, impossible to exhaust, and it may have 
 no reward but the joy of creation, no penalty but the 
 pain of failure. Yet surely it is on the great artist 
 that the sternest necessity is laid. Again, the duty of 
 a patriotic soldier may be simple and obvious : he has 
 but to do or die, as his officers may bid. The duty 
 of a patriotic statesman is far more complex. He has 
 to consider, amid the tangle of surrounding conditions, 
 what is likely in the end to be to the highest interest 
 of his country ; and often a clear answer is nowhere 
 to be found. Yet surely no statesman who is truly 
 patriotic would feel the obligation to be any less real 
 than that which is laid on the simplest soldier. Rather, 
 the magnitude of the issues at stake must render it 
 vastly greater. So we may say of conduct in general. 
 The more we advance in the development of the moral
 
 $ 8.] THE MORAL STANDARD. 27 1 
 
 life, the less possible does it become to point to any 
 single rule that seems to carry its own authority with 
 it, to any law that stands above us and says categori- 
 cally, You must do this. What we find is, more and 
 more, only the general principle that says, You ought 
 to do what you find to be best. And what is best may 
 vary very much in its external form, and even in its 
 inner nature, with changing conditions. But this does 
 not in any way destroy the absoluteness of the moral 
 standard. It still remains as true as ever that we 
 are bound to choose what is right " in the scorn of 
 consequence," though it may be more difficult for us to 
 say at any given point what precisely is right. The 
 authority, indeed, must come home to us with a far 
 more absolute power, when we recognise that it is our 
 own law, than when we regard it as an alien force. 
 
 This much, however, is true: that, as moral principles 
 cease to be laws of a state or of a divine lawgiver or 
 of a definite voice of conscience within us, it becomes 
 all the more important to have a clear view of the 
 concrete content of the moral life. A few generalities 
 will no longer suffice for our guidance. This is, indeed, 
 what we find with reference to the advance of all the 
 more distinctively human sciences. In Economics, for 
 instance, scientific treatment began with the formu- 
 lation of a few simple " laws," and it was only by 
 degrees that it came to be recognised that what is 
 really wanted is a concrete study of the facts of the 
 economic system. In the case of Ethics, the science 
 was to a large extent established on the right lines at 
 a comparatively early point in its development by 
 Aristotle; but, both before and after his time, there
 
 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. vi. 
 
 have been constant efforts to introduce an unreal 
 simplification by appealing to some rigid abstract 
 standard. The significance of the work of Hegel and 
 of the recent school of development has lain largely 
 in bringing us back again to the more concrete point 
 of view of Aristotle. In the following Book some 
 attempt will be made to show the value of this point 
 of view in enabling us to deal with some of the more 
 important problems of the moral life. Before we 
 proceed, however, to the consideration of the moral life 
 in the concrete, it seems desirable to raise the general 
 question of the bearing of ethical theory on practice. 
 The exact sense in which it is possible to apply the 
 moral standard varies a good deal with different theories 
 of its nature; and accordingly it seems desirable at 
 this point to devote a chapter to the discussion of this 
 subject.
 
 I.] THEORY AND PRACTICE. 273 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE BEARING OF THEORY ON PRACTICE. 
 
 1. DIFFERENT VIEWS. As I have already indicated, 
 there are different views with regard to the nature and 
 extent of the bearing of ethical theory on the practical 
 life of mankind. According to some, the aim of Ethics 
 is practical -throughout. According to others, it is a 
 purely theoretical study, with just as little direct bear- 
 ing on practical life as astronomy or chemistry or 
 metaphysics. Others, again, steer a middle course, 
 and, while holding that its aim is not directly practical, 
 yet believe that it has important practical bearings, 
 inasmuch as it makes clear to us the ideal involved in 
 life. As examples of the directly practical treatment of 
 Ethics, we may refer to most of the earlier thinkers up 
 to Plato, to the Stoics and Epicureans, to the Mediaeval 
 Casuists, to Bentham and most of the modern Utilita- 
 rians, and on the whole to Mr. Herbert Spencer. This 
 view corresponds also to what is probably the popular 
 conception of the subject. Most men expect that an 
 ethical teacher will tell them what they ought to do ; 
 and the common phrase " the Ethics of " ( Gambling, 
 Competition, Controversy, &c. ) is generally understood 
 to mean a statement of the right attitude to be adopted 
 with reference to certain departments of action. The 
 more purely theoretical view is to some extent repre- 
 sented by the effort of Spinoza to treat morals after the
 
 274 ETHICS. [BK. ir., en. vn. 
 
 manner of Geometry. It seems also to be the view 
 taken, though in somewhat different senses, by various 
 recent writers, among whom may be mentioned Dr. 
 Simmel, and perhaps Mr. F. H. Bradley and Mr. B. 
 Bosanquet, x and one or two others. The middle course, 
 however, has been adopted by most of the great writers 
 on the subject, from Aristotle downwards ; i. e. these 
 writers have treated the subject theoretically, but at 
 the same time have clearly indicated its bearings upon 
 the concrete moral life. 
 
 Now, the view which we ought to take on this point 
 depends largely on the general theory of Ethics which 
 we adopt. Some consideration of the way in which 
 the nature of our theory affects its bearing on practice 
 may, consequently, be here in place. 
 
 2. RELATION OF DIFFERENT VIEWS TO THE VARIOUS 
 ETHICAL THEORIES. From the point of view of the 
 Moral Sense School the bearing of ethical theory upon 
 
 1 Simmel's views are to be found especially in his Einleitung in die 
 Moralwissenschaft, voL i., p. iii, and vol. iL, pp. 408, 409, &c. Mr. 
 Bradley's most forcible statements on this point are to be found in 
 his Ethical Studies, pp. 174-5, an< ^ > n his Principles ofLogic,pp. 247-8. 
 For some criticisms on the statements there given, I may refer to 
 the International Journal of Ethics, vol. iii., No. 4, pp. 507 sqq. ; and 
 to the paper by Mr. Hastings Rashdall on " The Limits of Casuistry " 
 in the same Journal, vol. iv., No. 4, pp. 459 sqq. Cf. also ibid., voL 
 iv., No. 3, pp. 160-173, &c. It is probable, however, that Mr. Bradley'a 
 statements are intended only as an emphatic protest against the op- 
 posite extreme of those who think that ethical science should tell 
 us directly what we ought in particular to do. At any rate, there is 
 ground for thinking that Mr. Bradley no longer holds to the extreme 
 position indicated in the passages to which I have referred, and in 
 several others throughout the Ethical Studies. From several indi- 
 cations in the writings of Mr. Bosanquet, however, it would appear 
 that he adheres to the view expressed by Mr. Bradley ; but I am not 
 ware that be has ever given any clear statement of his position.
 
 2.] THEORY AND PRACTICE. 275 
 
 practical life would be exceedingly slight. For, ac- 
 cording to this view, Ethics is on substantially the 
 same footing as Esthetics. Now it will be generally 
 allowed that aesthetic theory * has very little direct bear- 
 ing upon the cultivation of taste or the production of 
 works of art. Of course a bad theory does sometimes 
 corrupt the taste of a generation, and a good theory 
 may help to set it right. But the influence of aesthetic 
 theory in this way is probably not much greater than 
 that of particular views on astronomy or biology might 
 be. All knowledge affects practice, but not all know- 
 ledge guides it ; and on the whole aesthetic theory does 
 not guide taste or artistic production. Similarly, if 
 morality were simply dependent on a kind of intuitive 
 taste, the theory which expounded the nature of this 
 taste would not have much effect on practical life, ex- 
 cept in a comparatively indirect way. In like manner, 
 it is true of most intuitional theories of morals that, if 
 they are accepted, the bearing of Ethics on practical 
 life must be of the slightest description. If we know 
 what is right by an instinctive perception, or by any 
 other kind of direct insight, the theoretical considera- 
 tion of this insight can bring nothing to light which is 
 not already involved in the practice of mankind. A 
 rational theory, like that of Kant, on the other hand, 
 
 1 Here, and elsewhere, I understand aesthetic theory to be con- 
 cerned with the study of the Beautiful (whither found in Nature or 
 In Art). Some writers regard Esthetics rather as the theory of 
 artistic production. In so far as there is any such theory, it would 
 more nearly resemble Ethics. But I think it is better to regard 
 ^Esthetics as concerned with the apprehension of the Beautiful 
 rather than with its creation. On the other hand, the moral life is, 
 from the nature of this case, necessarily treated as a creative 
 activity. 
 
 Etk. iy
 
 276 ETHICS. [BK. IL, CH. VH. 
 
 would seem to leave more stope for practical applica- 
 tion ; for, though the rational principles recognised by 
 such a theory are implicit in the ordinary conscious- 
 ness of mankind, yet the making of them explicit would 
 bring them into greater clearness, and so might be ex- 
 pected to have a considerable influence upon practice. 
 It is the Utilitarian theory, however, which lends itself 
 most directly to practical application. According to 
 this view there is a definite end (the greatest happiness 
 of the greatest number) to be aimed at in life; and 
 human beings cannot be assumed to have this end in 
 view in their ordinary actions, except in a very vague 
 and blundering fashion. Hence it would be the aim of 
 ethical theory, from this point of view, to bring the end 
 to light and to consider the means best adapted for its 
 attainment This would apply also to any view (such 
 as that of Socrates), according to which there is some 
 ascertainable end (some summum bonum), to which 
 human life ought to be directed, whether this end be 
 described as Happiness or in any other way. Finally, 
 if we adopt the view of development, we are naturally 
 led to take up an intermediate position with reference 
 to the applicability of ethical theory to practice. Of 
 course if any one were to take the view that the process 
 of development is inevitable and not open to criticism, 
 there would be no scope for the application of theory 
 to practice from this point of view, any more than 
 from the point of view of pure Intuitionism. If there 
 are absolute laws, either of the nature of intuitive com- 
 mands or of inevitable natural forces, by which the 
 nature of the moral life is determined, the science of 
 Ethics can only stand by and admire them. Now 
 there are some evolutionists who appear to take this
 
 3-] THEORY AND PRACTICE. 
 
 riew. But, in general, the view taken by those who 
 adopt the theory of development is that the develop- 
 ment, at least in its higher phases, is capable of re- 
 flective guidance, and, in fact, can only take place by 
 means of reflection. Hence, while thinkers of this 
 school would be chary of any attempt to deal with life 
 by a reference to some abstract end, taken up without 
 regard to the process of its development, they would 
 yet be ready to study this process of development with 
 a view to ascertain how far it is adequate to the ideal 
 that is involved in it ; and this reflective criticism might 
 be expected to have a considerable influence on prac- 
 tical life. 
 
 These general statements, however, are only roughly 
 true ; and we must now try to explain them some- 
 what more accurately in relation to the most im- 
 portant theories. 
 
 3. THE INTUITIONIST VIEW. According to the In- 
 tuitionist view, we apprehend immediately that cer- 
 tain lines of action are right and others wrong. On 
 the most stringent interpretation this means that there 
 can never be any real doubt as to the best course to 
 pursue. "An erring conscience is a chimera." The 
 study of moral principles cannot, therefore, lead us to 
 any truth which was not known before ; and scien- 
 tific Ethics is simply an intellectual luxury. This 
 stringent view, however, has seldom been taken by 
 Intuitionists. They have generally believed that 
 Conscience can be to some extent educated. They 
 have also sometimes held that even intuitive moral 
 principles may come into collision, and that reflection 
 is required in dealing with such cases of conflict. 
 Casuistry is not unknown among Intuitionists.
 
 278 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. vii. 
 
 Again, I have pointed out that, according to the 
 view of the more rational Intuitionists ' (i. e. those 
 represented by the line of thought extending from 
 Cudworth to Kant), the function of Ethics would 
 naturally be regarded as more directly practical ; 
 since the principle of morals is, from this point of 
 view, one that is capable of reflective analysis. It 
 should be observed, however, that Kant himself did 
 not regard Ethics as being practical in this sense. 
 For, though Kant held that the Categorical Imperative 
 is capable of reflective analysis, yet he also held that 
 it is so simple and obvious in its application, that it 
 is used by all rational beings, without the need of re- 
 flective analysis. In fact, it was Kant who put for- 
 ward the dictum that " an erring conscience is a 
 chimera." In accordance with this view, Kant also 
 held that there are no real cases of moral conflict, 
 and that, consequently, . casuistry is an absurdity. 
 The laws of duty are absolute, and admit of no ex- 
 ceptions. Kant, indeed, is, from this point of view, 
 quite the most stringent of all Intuitionists. In 
 general, however, it is true that those who accept a 
 rational principle as their standard acknowledge the 
 importance of reflective analysis from a practical point 
 of view. 
 
 4. THE UTILITARIAN VIEW. From the Utilitarian 
 point of view, the moral life is conceived as directed 
 towards a definite end viz. the attainment of pleasure, 
 and, more definitely, of the greatest possible pleasure 
 of all sentient creatures. So far, then, as this end 
 can be precisely determined, and the means to its 
 attainment definitely ascertained, it would be possi- 
 
 1 II they are to be called Intuitionists. See above, chap, iii, xa
 
 4-] THEORY AND PRACTICE. 279 
 
 ble to calculate what course of action is the best under 
 any assignable conditions. The task of Ethics would 
 thus become a quite directly practical one. But, even 
 from the Utilitarian standpoint, this view is subject to 
 considerable qualification. Even the Utilitarians hardly 
 conceive that it falls within the province of Ethics to 
 invent a morality for mankind. It would be unfair, 
 at any rate, to attribute so crude a misconception to 
 any of the leading exponents of the ideas of the 
 school. J. S. Mill, in particular, has expressly guard- 
 ed against it, by the statement in which he com- 
 pares the results of the moral experience of mankind 
 to the Nautical Almanack which is used in navi- 
 gation. He explains that, all through the course of 
 human life, men have been testing the consequences 
 of various lines of action, and the results of this 
 experience are summed up in the common sense of 
 mankind. The ethical philosopher, as well as the 
 "plain man," finds his Almanack already calculated, 
 and only requires to use it. Mill conceives, however, 
 that these calculations have been somewhat roughly 
 made, and have not been carried, so to speak, to 
 many places of Decimals. The ethical philosopher 
 will endeavour gradually to revise and extend them. 
 Dropping metaphor, we may say that there is a large 
 body of moral truths which, from the Utilitarian point 
 of view, may be accepted as embodying the best ex- 
 perience of the race ; but, since the race has not been 
 consciously guided by Utilitarian considerations, it 
 has not always summed up its results quite accurately 
 in the moral precepts that have come to be recognised 
 as binding. The finer distinctions have been blurred, 
 and the more remote consequences ignored, Henca
 
 280 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. vn. 
 
 reflection on the moral end may enable us to intro- 
 duce considerable corrections into the judgment of 
 common-sense morality. * 
 
 5. THE EVOLUTIONIST VIEW. When thus qualified, 
 the Utilitarian view on this point is not substantially 
 different from that commonly adopted by the Evolu- 
 tionists at least by those who take a definitely 
 teleological view of the process of development 
 From this point of view, as from that of Utilitarianism, 
 there is a definite end in view, though it may be an 
 end that is a good deal more difficult to formulate. 
 The greater complexity of the end, however, tends to 
 introduce greater uncertainty with respect to the best 
 means to its attainment ; while, at the same time, 
 the idea of development brings with it a greater con- 
 fidence in the fruits of past experience, as embodied 
 in the traditions and intuitions of the race. The 
 
 l Cf. Fowler and Wilson's Principles of Morals, Part I., pp. 118-19. 
 " What is most of all important to the practical moralist is, that his- 
 tory will familiarise him with the idea of development or evolution, 
 shewing him that institutions or habits are not accidental in their 
 origin, or mere devices of the legislator ; that they have grown up 
 for the most part by virtue of tendencies in human nature modified 
 and directed by external circumstances, and that these tendencies 
 should be understood by all who seek to direct them. This con- 
 sideration will teach us the precaution necessary in dealing with 
 prevalent ideas and customs, and prevent us from making attempts 
 to modify them without due preparation. On the other hand, by 
 studying the circumstances in which moral ideas or rules had their 
 origin, we shall be better able to see whether they are suitable to 
 the present condition of mankind, or whether the necessity for 
 them has ceased. History, in short, enables us to understand and 
 appreciate the present ; it enables us to some extent to anticipate 
 the future, and the knowledge which it supplies is an indispensable 
 condition of all wise attempts at moral and social improvement.'' 
 It is thus that the careful Utilitarian recognises the necessity of tha 
 tody of the actual course of concrete moral development
 
 5.] THEORY AND PRACTICE. 28 1 
 
 Evolutionist is, consequently, as a rule, less prone 
 than the Utilitarian is to imagine that it is possible 
 by reflection to introduce definite improvements into 
 the morality of common sense. Mr. Herbert Spencer 
 has perhaps shown himself more ready than most to 
 suggest practical conclusions ; but this is not so 
 much because he thinks it possible to improve upon 
 the results of experience as because he thinks that the 
 experience of the race has resulted in the establish- 
 ment of certain quite definite intuitions as to natural 
 rights, &c., though the perversity of the human race 
 leads it very frequently to neglect these intuitive 
 truths. But Mr. Spencer's views on this point do not 
 seem to me to be quite consistent. 
 
 There are, however, as we have seen, other writers 
 of the Evolutionist school who do not hold that it is 
 possible to formulate any definite end to which the 
 process of development may be regarded as tending. 
 According to these writers, there is a gradual process 
 of Evolution, and various forms of moral action and 
 moral judgment arise in the course of it ; but it is not 
 possible to give any clear account of its ultimate goal. 
 It must be taken simply as we find it; and the forms 
 of action and of moral judgment must be taken along 
 with the rest. The study of Ethics, from this point of 
 view, is simply a part of the wider study of Psychology 
 and Sociology, and hence is simply a study and in- 
 terpretation of facts. This is the view, in particular, 
 of Dr. Simmel, who ridicules the attempts of what he 
 calls the Monistic Moralists to give an account of any 
 single principle by which the moral life is guided. It 
 is merely a struggle of opposing forces, and the result- 
 ing moral system expresses nothing but the tendencies
 
 282 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. vii. 
 
 of the "compact majority." But this is not so much 
 a theory of Ethics as a theory of its impossibility. In 
 so far, however, as such a view is taken, ethical theory 
 would have no practical application, just as it has none 
 according to the purely Intuitionist view. When we 
 enter the region of absolute Law as the foundation of 
 morals whether it be that of God, of Conscience, of 
 Reason, or of a blind struggle we are beyond the 
 possibility of regulative principles based on an ideal. 
 
 6. THE IDEALISTIC VIEW. How does the matter 
 stand, finally, from the point of view of the more 
 idealistic theory of development ? From this stand- 
 point the process of development is conceived in a 
 more distinctly teleological fashion than it is from the 
 standpoint of biological evolution ; but on the other 
 hand the end in view is more complex and more diffi- 
 cult to define. The unfolding of the capabilities of 
 mankind, the realisation of the rational Universe 
 phrases such as these, though they have a quite defi-. 
 nite and intelligible meaning, hardly serve to furnish 
 us with a clear-cut end to the attainment of which 
 definite means may be adopted. If such an end were 
 not one that is naturally and inevitably adopted by 
 mankind, it would be hopeless to seek to impose it 
 upon them. Besides, as the ideal, from this point of 
 view, is not thought of as an external end, but as the 
 unfolding of the essential nature of mankind, we may 
 naturally expect to find it unfolding itself throughout 
 the whole course of human history. If this view is 
 correct, the ideal would be found in human life by the 
 psychologist and the sociologist, as well as by the 
 student of Ethics ; the difference being that the former 
 are not specially concerned with it, and find it only as
 
 6.] THEORY AND PRACTICE. 283 
 
 one f*ct among others, while the student of Ethics 
 makes it his special business to examine it. From the 
 point of view of idealism, therefore, more than from 
 most others, it must be clearly recognised that it is not 
 the business of Ethics to invent a new morality for the 
 world. If it were not true that "morality is the nature 
 of things," no amount of reflection could ever make it 
 so. At the same time, this ought not to be under- 
 stood as meaning that the student of Ethics accepts 
 the world as he finds it. Like the poet, he 
 
 " Looks at all things as they are 
 But through a kind of glory " 
 
 He looks at the world in the light of the ideal which is 
 developing through it. Taking the world as it stands 
 at any particular time, we do not find that it is a 
 homogeneous whole. It is a struggling, developing 
 process, in which, as the Persians put it, there is a 
 continual conflict between Ormuzd and Ahriman, Light 
 and Darkness. The student of Ethics, from the point 
 of view of Idealism, is not an indifferent spectator of 
 this struggle. He looks for the evidence of the triumph 
 of Light. In what direction this triumph will come, 
 he will hardly undertake to prophesy ; but, in his 
 study of life and history, of the contest between the 
 Family and the State, Individualism and Socialism, 
 Law and Freedom, the ideals of the Hebrews and of 
 the Greeks, he is interested to watch not simply the 
 direction in which at any time things are moving, in 
 the swaying to and fro of opposing forces, but rather 
 in trying to bring out the significance of the movement, 
 i.e. its bearing upon the gradual unfolding of the ideal 
 which it involves. To study it in this way is at the 
 same time to criticise it
 
 284 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. vii. 
 
 There are thus two sides in the idealistic view of 
 Ethics. On the one hand, it looks to the experience 
 of mankind ; on the other hand, it looks to the ideal. 
 Without the former it would be empty ; without the 
 latter it would be blind. And on the whole all the 
 writers who have dealt with the subject from this point 
 of view have kept their eyes upon both aspects. But 
 some writers have tended to lay more emphasis on the 
 one side than on the other. The typical instances of 
 the two methods are Plato and Aristotle. Plato seems, 
 at least *o the superficial view, to be perpetually con- 
 structing ideal Republics and ideal types of life, with 
 but little reference to the concrete facts of human 
 development. 1 Aristotle, on the other hand, seems 
 again to the superficial view to throw aside the ideal 
 as not 7T/>axT(5v xa} zTTjTov toOptoKu), and to concentrate his 
 attention upon the virtues and institutions of the Greek 
 State, as he found it beside him. Hegel, in more 
 modern times, has seemed to lend himself to both 
 forms of misunderstanding. Some have regarded him 
 as a father of revolutionists, 2 who created a world out 
 of his inner consciousness, without regard to fact and 
 history ; others have scoffed at him as an upholder of 
 the status quo, who simply accepted the world as he 
 found it. J But wisdom is justified of all her children ; 
 
 1 That Plato was not a mere dreamer of dreams, but a true inter- 
 preter of the moral life of his time, is well brought out by Hegel in 
 his History of Philosophy and Philosophy of Right, 
 
 a The Socialists and Nihilists used to be fond of claiming Hegel as 
 their founder. They seem to have abandoned this view now. 
 
 * Fries said of Hegel that his political views were grown " not in 
 the garden of science, but on the dunghill of servility." In some- 
 what the same way Goethe was called the Friend of the powers 
 that be (Freund des Bcstehenden), The confusion, in the case of
 
 7-] THEORY AND PRACTICE. 28$ 
 
 and the opposition between these different aspects of 
 truth is wholly superficial. The ethical idealist takes 
 the world as he finds it ; but he takes it to bring out 
 its significance, and so to criticise it. He brings an 
 ideal to bear upon it, but the ideal is one that is in- 
 volved in the facts themselves. The seeming opposi- 
 tion is a real identity ; and Aristotle is not the enemy 
 of Plato, but his interpreter. 
 
 7. SUMMARY OF RESULTS. On the whole, then, we 
 see that there are three views of the way in which 
 Ethics bears on practical life : 
 
 (1) There is the view that it has essentially no 
 bearing upon it at all. This is the view of the more 
 extreme Intuitionists, whether perceptional or rational ; 
 of those evolutionists who believe that no end can be 
 discovered in the process of development ; and perhaps 
 also of a few idealists. 
 
 (2) There is the view that Ethics is directly practical. 
 This is the view chiefly of the Utilitarians, but partly 
 also of all those who think that some definite end can 
 be formulated for mankind, which is not involved in 
 the process of human development itself. 
 
 (3) There is the view that Ethics has for its primary 
 function to bring out the significance of the moral life 
 in relation to the ideal that is involved in it, and that 
 this process is at the same time a criticism of it. The 
 third of these views is of course the one that is here 
 
 Hegel, arises mainly from not appreciating his distinction between 
 the Actual (Wirklich) and the Existent He held that the Actual is 
 Rational, but he meant by the Actual, not what is at any time found 
 existing, but the underlying spirit by which the movement of history 
 is carried on. It is the business of Ethics to bring this clearly to 
 liffal
 
 286 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. vn. 
 
 adopted ; and, in the light of what has now been saiw, 
 the remarks at the beginning of this treatise on the 
 essentially normative character of ethical science may 
 perhaps become more intelligible. 
 
 8. COMPARISON BETWEEN ETHICS AND LOGIC. Perhaps 
 a comparison between Ethics and Logic, from this 
 point of view, may help in some degree to make my 
 meaning clearer. The essential similarity between 
 these two sciences has been already indicated. Now, 
 it is possible to take different views of Logic, in its 
 bearing upon the work of the particular science, just 
 as it is possible to take different views of Ethics, in its 
 bearing upon practical life. It may be held that it is 
 the business of Inductive Logic to lay down the rules 
 to be observed by the particular sciences in the inves- 
 tigation of nature. This is on the whole the view 
 suggested by Mill, just as on the whole the corre- 
 sponding view of Ethics is suggested by him. Or 
 again, such a Logic as that of Hegel, in which the, ideas, 
 of Quantity, Substance, Cause, &c., are dealt with in 
 their relationship to one another, may be supposed to 
 be (and has been supposed to be) an effort to deduce 
 these ideas priori, without any reference to the way 
 in which they emerge in our experience. Such views 
 of Logic would be on a par with the view of Ethics 
 according to which it is its business to invent a system 
 of morality. But most logicians would now admit 
 that the methods of the sciences have to be first dis- 
 covered by the sciences themselves, and that the ideas 
 used by them (Quantity, Substance, Cause, &c. ), could 
 never be known by us if they did not inevitably 
 emerge in the course of our experience. So also it 
 seems to be true that the content of the moral life it
 
 8.] THEORY AND PRACTICE. 287 
 
 developed hi the course of human experience, and does 
 not wait for the science of Ethics to invent it. 
 
 But then, it may be asked, does Logic simply accept 
 the methods of the sciences as it finds them, and simply 
 arrange the ideas of which the sciences make use ? 
 This view also seems to be incorrect. Logic seeks to 
 bring out the significance of those methods and ideas, 
 and to test their validity. In this way it at once 
 justifies them within their proper sphere, and brings 
 out their limitations. It does not invent ideas and 
 methods for the sciences, but it certainly criticises those 
 that it finds, in the light of the ideas of truth and con- 
 sistency which it finds in them. So with Ethics. It 
 does not invent the Family and the State, or the ideas 
 of Love and Truth, or the laws about Life and Pro- 
 perty. Still less does it seek to overturn these ideas 
 and institutions. It finds them in the concrete world 
 with which it deals ; and it seeks to understand them 
 in the light of the ideal of human development, to 
 which they have reference. It thus at once shows 
 their significance, and indicates their limitations. For 
 the "plain man "such an institution as the Family or 
 Private Property is apt to seem an eternal and inviolable 
 fact in the moral life ; and, if he is taught to doubt 
 about this, by being shown that they have had a 
 history, and have not always existed in the form in 
 which they now appear, he is apt to become confused, 
 and to think that the significance of those elements in 
 human life has been destroyed. The student of Ethics 
 should be able to see the significance and value of such 
 institutions, while at the same time he is able to put 
 them in their proper place as elements in a whole. It
 
 288 ETHICS. [BK. n., CH. vn. 
 
 13 in this form of critical insight that the study of Ethics 
 has practical value. 
 
 9. THE TREATMENT OF APPLIED ETHICS. In the 
 light of those observations, we are now able to proceed 
 to the treatment of Applied Ethics. Hitherto we have 
 been concerned with the pure theory, t. e. with the 
 consideration of the nature of the standard or ideal. 
 Now, a treatise on Ethics frequently contains nothing 
 more than the discussion of this point ; and, if our 
 view of the nature of the standard had been some- 
 what different from what it is, this might possibly have 
 sufficed for our purpose. If we had adopted an in- 
 tuitional view, there could have been hardly any 
 Applied Ethics to deal with. If we had adopted a 
 Utilitarian view, the applications would have consisted 
 in working out the Calculus in various directions ; and 
 however difficult (if not impossible) this might be, the 
 general principle of it at least would have been so 
 obvious, that we might fairly have been dispensed from 
 the working of it out. But for any one who adopts the 
 point of view of development a treatment of Ethics 
 which made no attempt to interpret the concrete pro- 
 cess of development in the light of the ideal principle 
 involved, would be little short of an absurdity. Hence, 
 this part of the subject has generally been a prominent 
 one with those writers who adopt the point of view 
 of Development. It is so, for instance, with Aristotle, 
 in whose Nicomachean Ethics the concrete life of the 
 citizen is sketched with considerable fulness, and who 
 seeks to complete the subject by a consideration of the 
 State and Education in his treatise on Politics. It is 
 so also with Hegel, whose chief work on Ethics (the
 
 9-] THEORY AND PRACTICE. 289 
 
 Philosophy of Right) is almost entirely concerned with 
 the concrete moral life. 
 
 In dealing with this concrete aspect of the subject, 
 the student must guard against two possible miscon- 
 ceptions, which have perhaps already been sufficiently 
 indicated, but which it may be well to repeat and em- 
 phasize once more. 
 
 (i) It must not for a moment be imagined that the 
 concrete elements of the moral life are to be extracted 
 by some sort of alchemy, out of the general principle. 
 The task of Ethics would indeed be a hard one if it had 
 to invent the moral life as well as to interpret it. But 
 happily there were some good men in the world before 
 there were books on Ethics ; and even now that many 
 books have been written, Heaven help the hapless 
 mortal who gets his ideas of the moral life from them ! 
 We can learn what the moral life is by living it, and 
 there is no other way. It is only after it has been lived 
 that the science of Ethics can step in, and explain what 
 it means. No doubt in thus explaining it, it is at the 
 same time criticising it ; and a moral life that has been 
 subjected to criticism (like a book that has been sub- 
 jected to criticism) is not quite the same thing as it was 
 before. But the student must altogether clear his mind 
 of any sort of notion that may linger in it, that in the 
 chapters which follow a brand-new moral life is to be 
 unfolded before his wondering eyes. Even a treatise 
 on medical science does not teach us to breathe with 
 our ears. We learn to breathe before we study physi- 
 ology or hygienics, and to live before we study Ethics ; 
 and, on the whole, after we have studied them, breathe 
 and live very much as we did before. We learn such 
 
 things by action and experience. If a man is "a fool 
 Eth. X 9
 
 290 ETHICS. [BK. ii., CH. vii. 
 
 or a physician at forty," it is certain that he is a muff or 
 a moralist at a still more tender age ; and the reflec- 
 tive analysis of life can only teach him to do a little 
 more carefully and exactly (it may be, only a little more 
 pedantically) what in the main he did before. 
 
 (2) On the other hand, the student must equally 
 guard against the opposite misconception, that in study- 
 ing the content of the moral life we regard it simply 
 from the point of view of Sociology. To the student 
 of Sociology the immoral life is on the whole as inter- 
 esting as the moral life (Simmel says ' it is more so), and 
 degeneration is as interesting as development. For us, 
 on the other hand, life is interesting only in the light 
 of its ideal. We do not care for what it is, but for what 
 it signifies. Hence also our method of treatment is 
 different. We do not aim at a statement of the course 
 through which the moral life has passed in the che- 
 quered career of its history, but rather at an account 
 of its most significant aspects. In a complete treat- 
 ment of it, we might perhaps be led to arrange it, after 
 the manner of Hegel, in the order of its dialectical 
 development. But in an introductory account like the 
 present a somewhat less systematic arrangement may 
 suffice. 
 
 At any rate, we have now had enough of these pre- 
 liminary observations and warnings. Let us plunge, 
 as best we can, into our account of the concrete moral 
 life. 
 
 i See International Journal of Ethics, VoL III., no. 4. So also in 
 physiology and psychology, pathological states are often more 
 enlightening than those that are normal
 
 1.] THE SOCIAL UNITY. 291 
 
 BOOK III. 
 THE MORAL LIFE. 
 
 CHAPTER L 
 
 THE SOCIAL UNITY. 
 
 1. THE SOCIAL SELF. We have seen that the true 
 self is the rational self. We must now try to under- 
 stand what this means. And, first of all, we have to 
 add that the true self is the social self. Up to this point 
 we have spoken of the individual almost as if he might 
 bean isolated and independent unit. But every individ- 
 ual belongs to a social system. An isolated individual 
 is even inconceivable. Aristotle said truly that such a 
 being must be "either a beast or a god." 1 Such a 
 being could have no ideal self. He must either have 
 realized his ideal like a god, or have no ideal to realize 
 like a beast. For our ideal self finds its embodiment 
 in the life of a society, and it is only in this way that 
 it is kept before us. Not only so, but even the realiza- 
 tion of our ideal seems to demand a society. For 
 to have a perfectly rational self would involve that our 
 universe should have a perfectly rational content 
 Now the only possible universe with a rational content 
 seems to be a universe of rational beings. Hence we 
 
 1 Politics, I. ii. 14 : " He who is unable tr live in society, or who haa 
 no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast
 
 292 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. t 
 
 must go even beyond the saying of Aristotle, and say 
 that even a God must be social. Even a God must 
 have a rational universe in relation to Himself, and 
 must consequently create, or, in Hegelian phrase, 
 go out of Himself into a world of rational beings. 
 But this is perhaps too abstruse a subject to be more 
 than hinted at here. It is sufficient for our purpose to 
 say that it is in relation to our fellow-men that we find 
 our ideal life. "Where two or three are gathered to- 
 gether, there am I in the midst of them." 1 The " I " 
 or ideal self is not realized in any one individual, but 
 finds its realization rather in the relations of persons to 
 one another. It embodies itself in literature and art, 
 in the laws of a state, in the counsels of perfection 
 which societies gradually form for themselves. 
 
 2. SOCIETY A UNITY. Society, therefore, must be re- 
 garded as a unity in fact, as we shall see shortly, as 
 an organic unity. The parts of it are necessary to each 
 other, as the parts of an animal organism are ; and it 
 is in all the parts in relation to one another, rather than 
 in any one of them singly, that the true life is to be 
 found. " We are members one of another. " The ideal 
 life of one requires others to complement it, and it is 
 by mutual help that the whole develops towards per- 
 fection. This we shall see more fully in the sequel* 
 
 1 1 do not mean to imply that this saying was originally intended 
 to bear the sense here ascribed to it But I think it has frequently 
 been used by religious men to express that consciousness of unity, 
 and of elevation into a higher universe, which arises when a number 
 of men gather together in a common spirit and with a common aim 
 for the advancement of their moral lives. Clifford's "tribal self" 
 contains a similar idea. (See above p. 115.) 
 
 3 See sections n and 12 below. The present section is intend*} 
 only as a preliminary statement.
 
 3 4-] THE SOCIAL UNITY. 293 
 
 3. EGOISM AND ALTRUISM. This fact leads us to in- 
 troduce a certain modification into the view of the 
 moral life that has been presented up to the present 
 point. We have spoken of the great end of the moral 
 life as self-realization. But since an individual is a 
 member of a social unity, his supreme end will be not 
 simply the perfecting of his own life, but also of the 
 society to which he belongs. To a great extent the 
 one end will indeed coincide with the other. Yet there 
 appears, at least primd fade, to be a certain possibility 
 of conflict. Now when we seek simply our own in- 
 dividual ends, this attitude is called Egoism ; while 
 the term Altruism is used to denote devotion to the 
 ends of others. It is of great importance to consider 
 the precise relation of these two attitudes to one 
 another. 
 
 4. MR. SPENCER'S CONCILIATION. A good deal of 
 attention has been given to this subject by Mr. Herbert 
 Spencer, 1 and he has endeavoured to show how a con- 
 ciliation may be effected between the two attitudes. 
 He points out that either of them, if carried to an ex- 
 treme, is self-destructive. If every one were to seek 
 only his own ends, this would be a bad way of secur- 
 ing the ends even of any one individual. For each 
 one stands frequently in need of help. On the other 
 hand, if every one were to devote himself entirely to 
 the good of others, this would be fatal to the good of 
 others. For if each one neglected himself, he would 
 deteriorate in his ability to help others. This point is 
 worked out in a very interesting way by Mr. Spencer, 
 
 * Data of Ethics, chaps, xl and xiv. Cf. Stephen's Science of Ethics, 
 chap, vi, Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, pp. 70-1, and .\i airhead's, 
 Elements oj Ethics, pp. 164-5
 
 294 ETHICS. [BK. IIL, CH. i. 
 
 and h eomes to the conclusion that what we should 
 aim at is neither pure Egoism nor pure Altruism, but a 
 compromise between them. He thinks also that the 
 more completely society becomes developed, the more 
 will the two ends tend to become identical 
 
 5. SELF-REALIZATION THROUGH SELF-SACRIFICE. The 
 truth seems to be, however, that there is even less 
 opposition between Egoism and Altruism than that 
 which Mr. Spencer recognizes. We can realize the true 
 self only by realizing social ends. In order to do this 
 we must negate the merely individual self, which, as 
 we have indicated, is not the true self. We must real- 
 ize ourselves by sacrificing ourselves. 1 The more fully 
 we so realize ourselves, the more do we reach a uni- 
 versal point of view e. a point of view from which 
 our own private good is no more to us than the good 
 of any one else. No doubt it must always be neces- 
 sary for us to take more thought for our own individual 
 development than for that of any one else ; because 
 each one best understands his own individual needs, 
 and has the best means of working out his own nature 
 to its perfection. But when this is done from the point 
 of view of the whole, it :s no longer properly to be de- 
 scribed as Egoism. It is self-realization, but it is self- 
 realization for the sake of the whole. In such self- 
 realization the mere wishes and whims of the private 
 self have been sacrificed, and we seek to develop our- 
 selves in the same spirit and for the same ends as those 
 in which and for which we seek to develop others. 
 When we live in such a spirit as this, the opposition 
 between Egoism and Altruism ceases. We seek neither 
 
 i CJ. Caird's He&l, pp. 2ICHU&
 
 6, /.] THE SOCIAL UNITY. 29$ 
 
 our own good simply nor the good of others simply, 
 but the good both of ourselves and of others as mem- 
 bers of a whole. Looking at the matter, therefore, 
 from this point of view, it might be better to describe 
 the ultimate end as the realization of a rational uni- 
 verse, rather than as self-realization. 
 
 6. ETHICS A PART OF POLITICS. We must recognize, 
 In short, that man is, as Aristotle expressed it, "a po- 
 litical animal," ' and that Ethics cannot be satisfacto- 
 rily treated except as a part of Politics i. e. as a part 
 of the study of Society. Our duties and our virtues 
 are at every point dependent on our relations to one 
 another. This fact was more clearly recognized by 
 some of the ancient Greek thinkers than it has been 
 by many in modern times for, in modern times, partly 
 on account of the influence of Christianity,* we have 
 come to think more of the independence of the indi- 
 vidual It may be well, therefore, to glance for a 
 moment at the way in which Ethics was regarded by 
 Plato and Aristotle. 
 
 7. PLATO'S VIEW OF ETHICS. Plato was so strongly 
 Impressed with the social nature of man, and with 
 the necessity of studying his life in relation to society, 
 that, in his study of Ethics, instead of inquiring into 
 the characteristics of a virtuous life in an individual, 
 he endeavoured first to determine the characteristics 
 of a good state. Having found what these are, he 
 considered that it would be perfectly easy to infer what 
 are the characteristics of a good man. Accordingly, 
 the great ethical treatise of Plato is the Republic, in 
 
 1-noAm-riwtfor" (Politics, I. il Q). 
 
 i Partly also, no doubt, because our wider international relation- 
 ships have made it impossible for us to regard any one social system 
 ma a complete and exclusive unity in itsell
 
 296 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. i. 
 
 which he gives a sketch of an ideal state. It seemed 
 to him in accordance with a classification that was 
 current among the Greeks that there were four great 
 virtues required for the existence of an ideal state, viz. 
 wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice ; and he 
 thought that by observing exactly the significance of 
 these virtues in the ideal state, he was able to see also 
 what their exact significance must be in the life of the 
 individual. 1 
 
 8. ARISTOTLE'S VIEW OF ETHICS. Aristotle was not 
 less convinced than Plato of the essentially social 
 nature of man. He began his great treatise on Ethics 
 perhaps the greatest that has ever been written 
 with a statement to the effect that Ethics is a part of 
 Politics ; a and the greater part of his treatise is occupied 
 with an investigation of the virtues that are required 
 in a good citizen of a state such as he found in Greece, 
 and especially in Athens. He did indeed think that 
 there was a kind of life, what he called the contem- 
 plative or speculative life (what we might call the life 
 of science, or the life of the student), which was essen- 
 tially higher than the life of political activity ; but he 
 
 1 For a fuller account of Plato'3 Ethics, see Sidgwick's History of 
 Ethics, pp. 35-51. Plato's Republic is a book of such interest and 
 importance that every student ought to find some opportunity of 
 reading it It has been admirably translated both by Jowettand by 
 Davies and Vaughan, In connection with this, Dr. Bosanquet's 
 Companion to Plato's Republic should by all means be used 
 
 * In the wide sense in which the term Politics was used by the 
 Greeks. Perhaps in modern times we should rather say that Ethics 
 Is a part of Social Philosophy. I have discussed this point in my 
 Introduction to Social Philosophy, p. 48. On the relation between 
 Ethics and Politics the student may profitably consult Sidgwick's 
 Methods of Ethics, Book I., chap. U. See also M airhead's Element* 
 of Ethics, Book I., chap, iji, 14,
 
 9 I0 -] THE SOCIAL UNITY. 297 
 
 considered that even this higher life must be built up 
 on a basis of civic virtue. l 
 
 9. COSMOPOLITISM. The best Ethics of the Greeks, 
 then, was based on the conception of the State, as the 
 sphere within which the life of the individual is to be 
 realized. It was only after the best days of the Greek 
 state were over, when everything was beginning to be 
 crushed under the iron heel of Rome,* that the Stoics 
 began to speak of a nohrda. TOO xofffioo, and to think of 
 the virtuous man (or "the wise man," as they called 
 him) as one who is bound by no particular social ties, 
 but lives an independent life of his own. Even the 
 Stoics, however, recognized that the good man is a 
 citizen ; but they said that he ought to be "a citizen 
 of the world," not of any particular community. In 
 this way his social relations were made so vague that 
 it almost seemed as if they might be altogether ignored. 
 There was a great elevation in much of the teaching 
 of the Stoics ; but its want of any definite recognition 
 of social relationships made it cold and hard, and some- 
 what destitute of content. And often it was inflated 
 with a certain false pride in the independence of the 
 individual. 
 
 10. CHRISTIAN ETHICS. Christianity may be said to 
 have gone to some extent in the same direction as 
 Stoicism. 3 It also was essentially cosmopolitan, and 
 it also tended to insist on the independent life of the 
 individual.'* Each one must "work out his own 
 
 l See Sidgwiclfs History of Ethics, pp. 51-70. 
 
 8 See Caird's Hegel, pp. 204-207, Zeller's Stoics, Epicureans, and 
 Sceptics, pp. 15-16, and Wallace's Epicureanism, chap, i 
 Sidgwick's History of Ethics, pp. 114-117. 
 Christianity insisted on the dignity of man as man more strongly
 
 298 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. L 
 
 salvation," and must even forsake father and mother, 
 and all other social relationships, in order to follow 
 after the ideal life. Christianity represented the ideal 
 life also as an imitation of a divine personality. Still, 
 this was only one aspect of Christianity. It was no 
 less emphatic in its insistence on the doctrine that we 
 are "members one of another," and that in order to 
 attain perfection we must recognise our essential unity 
 both with each other and with God. The fact, how- 
 ever, that Christianity had to make its way in an 
 adverse world rendered it necessary at first to insist 
 somewhat strongly on the need of isolation. Its fol- 
 lowers had to recognize that they were "not of the 
 world," in order that they might keep their ideals pure. 
 But after Christianity had to a great extent conquered 
 the world, the other side the social side began to 
 come out ; and it is perhaps on that side now that its 
 significance is greatest Whether we look, therefore, 
 to ancient or to modern systems of morals, it is not 
 difficult to see that the recognition of the essentially 
 social nature of man plays a prominent part in all that 
 is best in them. This being the case, it will be well 
 now to abandon the view of the mere individual life 
 as that which is to be perfected, and to consider rather 
 what is involved in the perfection of society. 
 
 11. THE SOCIAL UNIVERSE. We must, however, first 
 bring this point of view into relation to what has been 
 already said with respect to the universes in which 
 men habitually live. The life of every man, except an 
 absolute madman, constitutes a more or less con- 
 
 than even Stoicism had done. Stoicism proclaimed the dignity only 
 of the wise man or philosopher ; whereas Christianity was preached 
 to "publicans and sinners."
 
 II.] THE SOCIAL UNITY. 299 
 
 sistent whole. His actions fall within a more w less 
 ordered scheme or plan. This whole, this plan, this 
 totality of ends which a man pursues, we have agreed 
 to describe as the universe within which he lives. 
 Now this universe is always of a social character. 
 Even the most original and even the most misanthropic 
 of men cannot escape from the influence of the social 
 environment by which they are formed. They inevi- 
 tably imbibe something of what has been called "the 
 ethos of their people," the moral point of view adopted 
 by the race or nation or body of men among whom, 
 or under the influence of whom, their lives are spent. 
 This moral atmosphere in which they pass their lives 
 supplies the main part of that universe within which 
 their desires find scope. So much is this the case that 
 a man always, except when in some abnormal state of 
 mind, thinks of himself, not as an isolated personality, 
 but as a member of some body. This fact is em- 
 phasized even by a writer in some respects so indi- 
 vidualistic as Mill. 1 "The social state," he says, 3 
 "is at once so natural, so necessary, and so habitual 
 to man, that, except in some unusual circumstances or 
 by an effort of voluntary abstraction he never con- 
 ceives himself otherwise than as a member of a body ; 
 and this association is riveted more and more, as man- 
 kind are further removed from the state of savage 
 independence. Any condition, therefore, which is es- 
 sential to a state of society, becomes more and more an 
 
 * This element In Mill's teaching is due, as he partly acknowledges 
 two pages later, to the study of Comte. Cf. his Autobiography, chap. 
 fv. Mill seems never to have made any serious effort to reconcile 
 the elements which he derived from Comte with the general tenor 
 of his philosophy. * Utilitarianism, chap. iiL, pp. 46-7
 
 3oo ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. i. 
 
 inseparable part of every person's conception of the 
 state of things which he is born into, and which is the 
 destiny of a human being. " For this reason, when we 
 consider any large society of human beings, bound 
 together by a common language, a common law, a 
 common religion, a common interest, we may say in 
 a broad sense that they all live habitually within the 
 same universe. They will all be distinguished no 
 doubt by individual peculiarities ; some of them will 
 be more and some less affected by the common ties ; 
 and even from year to year and from day to day the 
 universe of each will be liable to considerable varia- 
 tions. Still, speaking broadly, what the Germans call 
 the Sillen, t. e. the moral habitudes of a man's time 
 and place, tend to overshadow the peculiarities of his 
 individual nature, and to have a strong determining 
 influence on his view of life and on his conception of 
 his own vocation. The necessity of making himself 
 intelligible to those around him, the immense advan- 
 tage of understanding them, and the need of constantly 
 co-operating with them, would of themselves be suf- 
 ficient to bring about a certain homogeneity among 
 the members of a community. And when we add to 
 this the influences of heredity and education, the force 
 is overwhelming. 
 
 12. SOCIETY AN ORGANISM. These considerations 
 may partly enable us to understand an idea which has 
 become prevalent in recent times among writers of 
 very diverse schools the idea, namely, that a society 
 of human beings is, as we have already indicated, to 
 be regarded as an organic unity. The meaning of 
 this is, broadly speaking, that just as we recognize a 
 common life animating all the members of which a
 
 12.] THE SOCIAL UNITY. 301 
 
 living body is composed, so we must acknowledge a 
 similar unity among the members of a human society. 
 This idea has sometimes been presented in the form of 
 an analogy ; i. e. an attempt is made to draw parallels 
 between the structures of human societies and the 
 constitutions of animal or vegetable bodies. 1 Such 
 analogies are no doubt occasionally suggestive ; but 
 on the whole they supply more scope for ingenuity 
 than for insight. The essential point seems to be that 
 a human personality is never an isolated phenomenon. 
 It is even inconceivable apart from certain relations to 
 other personalities. The positive content of a man's 
 moral life depends on these relationships : apart from 
 them it would stagnate and die, very much as a limb 
 dies when it is cut off from its organic connection with 
 the body of which it forms a part. The whole of a 
 man's moral life, all its purposes, all its meaning and 
 value, receive their tone and colour from the ideals, 
 the institutions, the moral habits, among which his 
 life develops. This being so, it is important, in deal- 
 ing with the moral life, not merely to consider the life 
 of an individual man, but to have regard to the unity 
 within which the main part of his life falls. 1 That, in 
 
 1 This has been done, for instance, by Mr. Herbert Spencer in his 
 Principles of Sociology, vol. i., part ii. ; and, in a still more elaborate 
 form, by a German writer, Schaffle, in his Bau und Leben dcs sodalen 
 Kb'rpers. Mr. Leslie Stephen (Science of Ethics, p. 126) thinks it pre- 
 ferable to speak of " social tissue " rather than of a " social organism,* 
 because there is no one abiding unity in which individuals are 
 combined, as the parts are combined in an animal organism. 
 
 2 On the organic nature of society, the student may be referred to 
 Bradley's Ethical Studies, pp. 145-158, Bosanquet's Philosophical 
 Theory of the Staff, especially chapters vii. and viii., and Muirhead's 
 Elements of Ethics, pp. 165-172. I have expressed my own view on 
 this subject at greater length in my hilrjduction to Social Philosophy t
 
 
 302 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. L 
 
 spite of this unity, the individual has yet in a sense a 
 private life of his own is a point that we shall have to 
 consider at a later stage. 
 
 13. WHY is THE SOCIAL UNIVERSE TO BE PREFERRED ? 
 Now the question naturally presents itself at this point 
 Why should the social universe be preferred to the 
 universe of the individual consciousness ? The answer, 
 of course, from the point of view that we have now 
 reached, is that the individual self is in its nature in- 
 complete, and requires a larger whole for its realization. 
 Such a larger whole might no doubt conceivably be 
 found in something beyond and abovehuman society ; 
 and, if we were inventing a new morality, we might 
 have to look about for such a larger universe. But 
 if we accept the point of view of development, we 
 must accept the only medium within which any actual 
 process of moral development can be found. If it is 
 true that the individual has no reality apart from the 
 social whole, and that it is within that whole that his 
 development takes place, the devotion to that whole 
 has all the binding force which belongs to devotion^ to 
 the Ideal Self. We cannot separate ourselves from the 
 necessary medium of our evolution, and seek to per- 
 fect ourselves in vacua. The further discussion of this 
 question, however, would lead us into a metaphysical 
 investigation of the nature of the self, its relation to 
 the social whole within which it develops, and to the 
 universe in general. Such a discussion would be 
 necessary for the complete establishment of the validity 
 of the moral ideal. But it lies beyond the province of 
 
 chap. iii. The student of the present handbook will probably under- 
 stand this conception better after reading some of the following 
 chapters.
 
 14.] THE SOCIAL UNITY. 33 
 
 a work which does not profess to enter into meta- 
 physics. We can only hint a little further, in our con- 
 cluding chapter, at the nature of the problem- involved. 
 In the meantime, we must content ourselves with the 
 effort to bring out the general significance of the social 
 universe in its bearings on the moral life. 
 
 14. RELATION OF CONSCIENCE TO THE SOCIAL UNITY. 
 The importance of the social environment in the forma 
 tion of what is commonly known as Conscience, has 
 been noticed by a number of recent writers. This is 
 emphasized, for instance, by Mill * in his treatment of 
 the moral sanctions.* Without endorsing all that has 
 been said on this subject by him and others, it may at 
 least be convenient to sum up at this point what has 
 to be said on the nature of Conscience, and to indicate 
 its relations to our social universe. 
 
 It has been pointed out already that there is a certain 
 ambiguity indeed a twofold ambiguity in the use of 
 the term " Conscience." 3 It is sometimes used to ex- 
 press the fundamental principles on which the moral 
 judgment rests : at other times it expresses the principles 
 adopted by a particular individual : at other times it 
 
 1 Utilitarianism, chap. iiL Cf. also Bradley's Ethical Studies, p. 180 
 Stephen's Science of Ethics, chap. viiL, Clifford's Lectures and Essays 
 (" On the Scientific Basis of Ethics-"), and Dr. Starcke's article on 
 * The Conscience " in the International Journal of Ethics, voL il 
 No. 3 (April, 1892), pp. 342-37Z Hegel, in. his Rechtsphilosophie, 
 was, I think, the first writer who clearly brought out the social bear- 
 ing of Conscience. Much of what Hegel says on this point will be 
 found reproduced, in an excellent form, in Dewey's Outlines of Ethics 
 pp. 182-190, 
 
 8 On the meaning of the moral sanctions, see the Note at the end of 
 chap. vi. 
 
 See above, Book I, chap. VI. Cf. also Hegel's Philosophy a) 
 Right, 136-139.
 
 304 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. I. 
 
 means "a particular kind of pleasure and pain felt in 
 perceiving our own conformity or non-conformity to 
 principle." f The last seems to me to be the most con- 
 venient acceptation of the term,* except that I should 
 prefer to say simply that it is a feeling of pain accom- 
 panying and resulting from our non-conformity to 
 principle, s This sense of the term is evidently closely 
 connected with the second sense ; for the principles in 
 connection with which an individual feels pain are of 
 course the principles recognized by him. Nevertheless, 
 the first sense also is not entirely excluded : for even if 
 an individual is not clearly conscious of the deeper 
 principles of reason on which the final moral judgment 
 depends, he will yet often feel a vague uneasiness 
 when he goes against them. It is difficult to believe, 
 for instance, that St. Paul's conscience was entirely 
 at rest in the midst of his persecuting zeal, even if he 
 did think that he was ' ' doing God service. " However, 
 in general no doubt the pain of Conscience accom- 
 panies only the violation of clearly recognized duty. 
 
 1 Starcke, loc. cit, p. 348. 
 
 * Chiefly because it gives the most definite meaning. When wo 
 go beyond this, we land ourselves in almost hopeless ambiguities. 
 
 The element of mystery so often thought to attach to Conscience 
 is, I think, largely due to the fact that it is often not accompanied by . 
 any direct perception of " conformity or non-conformity to principle." 
 A man has often simply an uneasy feeling of having gone wrong, 
 without being able to say precisely what principle he has violated. 
 Further, I am doubtful whether it is correct to speak of a pleasure of 
 Conscience. Conformity to moral principle is the normal state ; and 
 this may be regarded as the neutral point Any violation of princi- 
 ple, on the other hand, brings pain. The performance of duty 
 leaves a man still in the position of an "unprofitable servant* 
 44 Spiritual pride," of course, is accompanied by a certain pleasure , 
 but should this be described as a pleasure of Conscience ? I think 
 Carlyle was right on this point t "To say that we have a clear con*
 
 I4-] THE SOCIAL UNITY. 305 
 
 Now we have seen that the principles of duty which 
 an individual recognizes are largely determined by the 
 social universe which he inhabits. Hence his con- 
 science also must be largely determined by this.' 
 A man's conscience, we may say broadly, attaches 
 itself to that system of things which he regards as 
 highest. There is, indeed, a certain feeling of pain, 
 analogous to that of Conscience, in connection with 
 every universe in which a man lives, whether he 
 regards it as the highest or not. Thus, there is a feel- 
 ing of pain or shame a accompanying the violation of 
 rules of etiquette or good taste, or even accompanying 
 the consciousness of any physical defect or awkward- 
 science is to utter a solecism ; had we never sinned, we should 
 have had no conscience." See his Essay on "Characteristics." 
 Of course, there is a certain gratification accompanying the fulfil- 
 ment of unaccustomed duties. If a man gets drunk only twice in 
 the course of the week, instead of three times as usual, or if he tells 
 the truth when there was a strong temptation to lie, he may feel 
 pleased in reviewing his action. But there does not appear to be the 
 same spontaneity and immediacy in this feeling as there is in the 
 case of the corresponding pain ; nor is its character so purely moral 
 It is more akin to the pleasure of solving a difficult problem. I sus- 
 pect that, just as there is no pleasure of the teeth, corresponding to 
 toothache ; so there is, strictly speaking, no pleasure of the con- 
 science, corresponding to its characteristic pain. 
 
 1 Hence Clifford's idea of a " tribal self "a sell which belongs to 
 a man's tribe or society, and to which his mere individual self is 
 subordinate. Clifford says, as we have seen, that a man's conscience 
 is " the voice of his tribal self." The pain of his conscience is equiv- 
 alent to his saying to himself, " In the name of my tribe, I bate my- 
 self for this treason which I have done." See above, Book I, 
 chap. V., and cf. Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, pp. 157-9. 
 
 * The Greek word u*, usually translated M shame," seems to b 
 very nearly equivalent to what we understand by Conscience, at 
 ^ast in one of its aspects. Cf. Stephen's Science of Ethics, p. 33^ 
 and Caird's Critical Philosophy of Kant, vol. il, pp. 265-61 
 
 Eth. so
 
 36 ETHICS. LBK. III., CH. L 
 
 ness, even if we are aware, not only that the universe 
 within which these things lie is not of supreme impor- 
 tance, but even that it does not lie within the power 
 of our will to avoid such deficiencies. Such a feeling 
 might be called a ^wasz'-Conscience. ' On reflection we 
 perceive either that we are not responsible for such 
 shortcomings, or that they are not of serious moral 
 importance ; but the feeling at the moment is scarcely 
 distinguishable from that of Conscience proper. Some- 
 times such a feeling may even conflict with Conscience. 
 Thus, the performance of duty may involve a violation 
 of etiquette ; so that, in whichever way we act, we are 
 bound to have the pain either of Conscience or of quasi- 
 Conscience. Again, Conscience sometimes attaches 
 itself to a universe which has been transcended. 
 When we have recently passed from one universe to 
 another, Conscience will generally be found to have 
 lagged a little behind, and to attach itself to the older 
 universe rather than to the newer one. "Feeling," as 
 Mr. Muirhead says, * "is the conservative element in 
 human life." It does not attach itself to a new 
 
 1 An excellent illustration of this is given by Mr. Muirhead (Ele~ 
 ments of Ethics, p. 77) in an extract from Prof. Royce's Religious 
 Aspect of Philosophy (pp. 53-4) : " You ride, using another man's 
 season ticket, or you tell a white lie, or speak an unkind word, and 
 conscience, if a little used to such things, never winces. But you 
 bow to the wrong man in the street, or you mispronounce a word, 
 or you tip over a glass of water, and then you agonize about your 
 shortcoming all day long ; yes, from time to time for weeks. Such 
 an impartial judge is the feeling of what you ought to have done.' 
 For similar illustrations, see Stephen's Science of Ethics, p. 323, and 
 Spencer's Principles oj Ethics, p. 337. 
 
 a Elements of Ethics, p. 80. Cf. the saying of Mr. Jacobs, quoted 
 by Miss Wedgwood (The Moral Ideal, p. 233), "The thoughts of one 
 generation form the feelings of its successor."
 
 I4-] THE SOCIAL UNITY. 30/ 
 
 universe, until we have thoroughly lived into it and 
 made ourselves at home in it ; nor does it sever itself 
 from an old universe, until we have thoroughly broken 
 off our connection with it. Hence a man will often 
 feel a pain of Conscience, or guasi-Conscience, in doing 
 an action which his reason has taught him to regard as 
 perfectly allowable ' or even as a positive duty ; while, 
 on the other hand, he will often be able to violate 
 a recently discovered obligation without feeling any 
 pain. 2 In general, however, the pains of Conscience 
 attend any inconsistency with the principles which we 
 recognize as highest ; and these, in general, are the 
 principles recognized as binding within the social 
 universe in which we habitually live. 3 
 
 With these remarks, we may pass on to the more 
 detailed consideration of social ethics i. e. to the con- 
 sideration of the moral order within which the life of 
 
 1 " The contradiction between reason and feeling which some of 
 us will recollect, when first we permitted ourselves to take a row or 
 attend a concert on Sunday, is a good example from contemporary 
 life " (Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, p. 80). 
 
 2 Hence, partly, the frequency of "back-sliding" in converts to 
 new principles. Conscience does not respond to their shortcom- 
 ings with sufficient readiness. It may be noted here also that it is 
 often possible to stifle Conscience by transferring ourselves from 
 one universe to another. Thus, a man may perform, under the in- 
 fluence of fanatical zeal, acts of cruelty from which, in his normal 
 state, he would shrink in horror. He stifles Conscience by escaping 
 from the universe in which such acts are condemned into one in 
 which they are rather approved. A good illustration of this is 
 given by Macaulay in his account of the state of mind of the Master 
 of Stair in sanctioning the massacre of Glencoe (History of England, 
 chap, xviii.). 
 
 ' For general discussion of the subject of Conscience, see Porter's 
 Elements of Moral Science, Part I., chap, xvi., Dewey's Outlines of 
 Ethics, pp. 182-206, and Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, pp. 73-84 and 
 208-242
 
 308 ETHICS. [BK. m., CH. i. 
 
 the individual is spent, and of the relation of the indi- 
 vidual life to that moral order. Of course this can be 
 done, in such a work as this, only in the most sketchy 
 fashion. But some remarks on the ethical significance 
 of the recognized moral institutions, duties and virtues, 
 may be found helpful
 
 $ I.] MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 309 
 
 CHAPTER IL 
 
 MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 1. THE SOCIAL IMPERATIVE. We have seen to some 
 extent what the nature of the " ought" is. It is, as 
 we may say, the law imposed by our ideal self upon 
 our actual self. Since, however, the ideal self is the 
 rational self, and since the rational self is not realized 
 in isolation, but in a society of human beings, it 
 follows that this "ought" is imposed on societies as 
 well as on individuals. As Mr. Herbert Spencer says, 1 
 "we must consider the ideal man as existing in the 
 ideal social state"; and in considering such an ideal 
 we pass a criticism not only on existing men, but on 
 existing social states. Not only can we say that an 
 individual ought 'to act in such and such a way, but we 
 can also say that a society ought to have such and such 
 a constitution.* In so far as an individual acts as he 
 ought to act, we say that his conduct is right, and that 
 he is a good, upright, or moral man. In so far as a 
 society is constituted as it ought to be, we say that it is 
 a well-ordered society, and that its constitution is just 
 In each case we compare actually existing men or 
 states with the ideal of a rational man and a rationally 
 
 1 Data of Ethics, chap. xvL, 106. 
 
 *It may be asked, Cn whom is this "ought" imposed? The 
 answer is, on the society as a whole, and more particularly on its 
 politicians and other " active citizens."
 
 310 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. IL 
 
 constituted state. The latter of these we must now 
 briefly consider. 1 
 
 2. JUSTICE. "Blessed," it is said, "are they that 
 hunger and thirst after justice. " * But perhaps it is more 
 easy to hunger and thirst after it than to define pre- 
 cisely what it means. Here, at any rate, we can only 
 indicate its nature in the vaguest and most general 
 way. For a fuller treatment reference must be made 
 to works on Politics. 
 
 A just arrangement of society may be briefly defined 
 as one in which the ideal life of all its members is 
 promoted as efficiently as possible. The constitution 
 of a society is, therefore, unjust when large classes in 
 it are so enslaved by others as to be unable to develop 
 their own lives. It is unjust, for instance, when there 
 is any class in it so poor, or so hard-worked, or so 
 dependent on others, as to be unable to cultivate their 
 faculties and make progress towards the perfection of 
 
 1 A complete discussion of this subject belongs rather to Politics 
 or Social Philosophy than to Ethics. But it seems necessary to 
 consider it here, in so far as it can be dealt with from a purely 
 ethical point of view. Some of the points dealt with here are some- 
 what more fully discussed in my Introduction to Social Philosophy, 
 chaps, v. and vL English writers on Ethics have, as a rule, not given 
 much attention to the subjects referred to in this chapter. Reference 
 may, however, be made to Stephen's Science of Ethics, chap. Hi., 
 Porter's Elements of Moral Science, Part II., chaps, xiil xvl, Rick- 
 aby's Moral Philosophy, and Clark Murray's Introduction to Ethics, 
 Book II., Part II., chap. i. For fuller treatment the student must 
 consult such works as those of Hoffding and Paulsen. Some of the 
 points are also referred to by Prof. Gizycki, whose work has been 
 adapted for the use of English readers by Dr. Stanton Coit Hegel's 
 Philosophic dcs Rechts must, however, still be regarded as the model 
 for the treatment of this whole subject It has recently beer, trans- 
 lated into English by Professor Dyde. 
 
 2 The Greek word S<.K<U<XTUVT\, translated " righteousness," maj 
 equally well be rendered by "justice."
 
 3-] MORAL INSTITUTIONS. $11 
 
 their nature. 1 It is unjust when the idle are protected 
 and set in power, and the laborious are crushed down 
 and degraded. 
 
 To free society from such arrangements as these has 
 been one of the chief efforts, perhaps the chief effort, of 
 the wise and good in all ages ; and there are certainly 
 few things to which a student of Applied Ethics should 
 give more attention than the methods by which this 
 has been and may still be done. The subject is, how- 
 ever, much too complicated for such an elementary 
 treatise as this, or indeed for any treatise ; and all that 
 we can here do is to indicate some of the main points 
 that have to be attended to in constructing a just order 
 of society.* 
 
 3. LAW AND PUBLIC OPINION. The first thing to be 
 observed is that a just arrangement of society can be 
 only to a certain extent enforced. The saying has 
 often been quoted 
 
 " How small of all that human hearts endure 
 That part which kings or laws can cause or core ! " 
 
 And it is partly true, if it be taken to apply simply to 
 that which can be directly and immediately accom- 
 plished by positive laws. Laws are inefficient when a 
 
 1 In a just social state, every human being must be treated as an 
 absolute end. It follows from this, however, that no one can be 
 treated as the absolute end: otherwise every one else would be 
 treated only as a means with reference to this one. Hence every 
 one must be treated at once as means and as end. 
 
 * The accounts of Justice given by Plato and Aristotle (Republic 
 and Ethics) have never been surpassed. For more modern discus- 
 sions, the student may be referred to Mill's Utilitarianism, chap, v., 
 Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics, Book III., chap, v., and Principles oj 
 Political Economy, Book III., chaps. vi.and viL.and Stephen's Science 
 f Ethics, chap, v., 35-39, See the Note at the end of this chapter.
 
 312 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. II. 
 
 people is by nature lawless ; and when a people has 
 become orderly or wise, laws may often be allowed to 
 sink into abeyance. The conditions of life are con- 
 tinually changing, and positive laws which were 
 beneficial at one time begin gradually to have a perni- 
 cious effect. It is, consequently, in many departments 
 of life of far more importance to try to develop good 
 habits of action and of opinion in a people than to 
 furnish it with hard and fast positive enactments. 1 
 Nevertheless, the sphere of positive law is a great one. 
 Public opinion grows very slowly, and there are always 
 considerable bodies in a community who are unaffected 
 by it, unless it takes the form of definite laws, with 
 punishments attached. Sometimes, after such laws 
 have fulfilled their purpose, it becomes desirable to 
 repeal them. St. Paul said of the Jewish law that 
 it was "a schoolmaster to lead men to Christ"; mean- 
 ing that as soon as men grasped the true meaning of 
 the moral ideal they could dispense with the narrow 
 injunctions of the law, which, nevertheless, were 
 necessary as a preparation. So it is with nearly all 
 laws. They are too rigid and formal for human beings, 
 as soon as they attain to true freedom ; but they are 
 necessary at first as a check upon licentiousness. 
 What men do at first from fear, they learn by and by 
 to do from habit, and afterwards from conscious will. 
 Law comes first, then habit, then virtue.' 
 
 i This seems to express the element of truth in much of what is 
 said by Mr. H. Spencer in his famous, but extremely one-sided book, 
 The Man versus the State. Some aspects of the same point are 
 brought out, in a more guarded way, in Aspects of the Social Problem, 
 edited by Dr. Bosanquet 
 
 * Mr.Muirhead quotes (Elements of Ethics, p. 93, note), a story about 
 Connop ThirlwalL " who on one occasion became involved in a
 
 4-] MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 313 
 
 4. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. The forces of law and 
 of public opinion are mainly concerned with the estab- 
 lishment of men's rights and obligations. These terms 
 are strictly correlative. Every right brings an obliga- 
 tion with it ; and that not merely in the obvious sense 
 that when one man has a right other men are under an 
 obligation to respect it, but also in the more subtle 
 sense that when a man has a right he is thereby laid 
 under an obligation to employ it for the general good. 
 This fact is concealed from many men's minds through 
 a certain confusion between legal and moral obliga- 
 tion. It is generally convenient to enforce the ob- 
 servance of rights by positive laws ; whereas it is 
 not generally convenient to enforce the corresponding 
 obligation. Hence it comes to be thought that there is 
 no obligation at all. For instance, it is convenient to pro- 
 tect property ; whereas it would be very troublesome 
 and dangerous to try to compel men to use their pro- 
 perty wisely and indeed any such attempt, beyond 
 certain narrow limits, is almost bound to defeat its own 
 ends. Hence it comes to be said that a man " may 
 do what he likes with his own." Legally, he may; 
 but morally, he is under the obligation to use his own 
 for the general good, just as strictly as if it were an- 
 other's. A man's rights, in fact, are nothing more than 
 those things which, for the sake of the general good, it 
 is convenient that he should be allowed to possess. 
 
 discussion with the late Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of 
 Lincoln, when the latter was residing at Trinity College, about the 
 retention of enforced attendance at chapel. ' It is a choice,' said the 
 Bishop, between compulsory religion and no religion at all' 'The 
 distinction," replied Thirlwall, ' is too subtle for my mental grasp. 
 The same might be said of compulsory morality it is eqoivalc*
 
 ETHICS. [BK. IIL, en. IL 
 
 And since it is for the sake of the general good that he 
 possesses them, he is bound to use them for that end. 
 By himself, a man has no right to anything whatever. 
 He is a part of a social whole ; and he has a right only 
 to that which it is for the good of the whole that he 
 should have. Let us consider very briefly the nature 
 of some of the more important of these rights. 
 
 5. THE RIGHTS OF MAN. (a) Life. The first of 
 human rights is the right to live. This right follows at 
 once from the fact that the moral end is a personal one 
 a form of self-realization. If the end which men 
 sought were some impersonal object, life might reason- 
 ably be sacrificed to that. And, indeed, as the self to 
 be realized is the social self, the individual will some- 
 times be justified in sacrificing his life for the sake of 
 his society. But such cases are exceptional. As a 
 rule, the human good requires the continuance of life 
 for its realization. Hence it is important that the 
 sacredness of life should be recognized. In some prim- 
 itive forms of society even this fundamental right is 
 not acknowledged. Children are frequently exposed, 
 and captives in war are put to death without hesita- 
 tion. And even in partly civilized communities the 
 sacredness of life is sometimes very lightly treated 
 e. g. where the practice of duelling is permitted. In- 
 deed if the value of life were fully appreciated, there 
 can be little doubt that even war would soon be abo- 
 lished among civilized nations. At present, however, 
 
 to no morality at all." This is of course true ; yet compulsory 
 morality may form an education towards true morality. This would 
 also have been at least a partial answer to Thirlwall. Cf. Hoff- 
 ding's Outlines of Psychology, p. 76. Mr. Muirhead notices the quali- 
 fication at a later stage, pp. 179-1801
 
 5-] MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 315 
 
 it remains a true maxim, St vis pacem para bellum. 
 Again, it must be observed that the right of life cannot 
 be said to be really secured to all the citizens of a com- 
 munity unless the means of obtaining a livelihood are 
 secured. The right to live thus seems to involve the 
 right to labour. ' 
 
 The right of life, like all rights, brings an obligation 
 with it viz. the obligation of treating life, both one's 
 own and that of others, as a sacred thing. He who 
 violates this obligation e. g. by murder forfeits 
 the right of life, and may legitimately be deprived 
 of it 
 
 (ft) Freedom. The next right is that of freedom. 
 The necessity of this rests mainly on the fact that the 
 moral ideal has to be realized by the individual will. 
 Hence the individual, in order to realize his supreme 
 end, must be free to exercise his will. The recognition 
 of this right usually comes much later than that of life.* 
 Slavery existed long after the stage at which prisoners 
 
 1 This point was emphasized by Louis Blanc and some other 
 socialistic writers. The question how far, and by what means, such 
 a right is to be secured, must be left to writers on Politics and Eco- 
 nomics, who again must probably hand it over in the end to the prac- 
 tical good sense of mankind. 
 
 * Hegel remarked (Philosophy of History, Introduction) that the 
 Oriental nations recognized only that one is free t. e. the Despot : 
 the Greeks, on the other hand, recognized that some are free viz. 
 the Greek citizens themselves while Barbarians were thought to 
 be naturally fitted for slavery : while it has been reserved for modern 
 times, under the influence of Christianity, to demand that all shall 
 be free. This demand has been especially prominent since the time 
 of the Reformation. Sometimes it Is even pushed to an extreme 
 e. g. by Rousseau and by the Economists of the laissezfaire school. 
 For extreme views in recent times, see A Plea for Liberty and Spen- 
 cer's The Man versus the State ; and for a criticism of these view% 
 tee Ritchie's Principles of State Interference.
 
 316 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. IL 
 
 of war were put to death ; and even now, after the 
 abolition of slavery, the conditions of contract with 
 regard to labour and to property are often of such a 
 kind as seriously to interfere with men's liberty in the 
 conduct of their lives. Of course freedom in any ab- 
 solute sense is not possible, and ought not to be aimed 
 at. It can never be permissible in any well-ordered 
 community that its members should do as they please. 
 The right which it is desirable to secure is the right of 
 having the free development of one's life as little inter- 
 fered with as is possible, consistently with the main- 
 tenance of social order. 
 
 The right of freedom brings with it the obligation of 
 using one's freedom for the attainment of rational ends. 
 Milton rightly said of liberty, " who love that must 
 first be wise and good." 1 It is only on this assump- 
 tion that liberty can be granted in a well-ordered state. 
 Hence the slowness in the acquisition of freedom is 
 not without justification. Freedom is not a com- 
 modity that can be bought or given : it must be 
 earned. 
 
 (c) Property. The right of property may almost be 
 regarded as part of the right of freedom. Nearly all 
 the ends at which a man can aim require instruments ; 
 and if a man has not the right to use these instru- 
 ments, his liberty of pursuing the ends is practically 
 rendered void. Since, however, instruments espe- 
 cially such instruments as the soil of a country are 
 limited in amount, it becomes a difficult question to 
 
 1 Cf. also what Milton says on this point in his Tenure of Kings and 
 Magistrates, i : **Non3 can love freedom heartily, but good men: 
 the rest love not freedom, but licence ; which never hath mere scope 
 or more indulgence than under tyrants."
 
 5.] MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 317 
 
 decide how the use of them is to be apportioned among 
 the members of a community. If their use is reserved 
 for a. few, the great majority of the citizens are to a 
 certain extent deprived of their liberty. The discus- 
 sion of this question, however, must be left to writers 
 on Politics. From a purely ethical point of view, we 
 can only insist on the importance of the right of pro- 
 perty, as a means of securing the possibility of a free 
 development of life. 
 
 The right of property involves the obligation to use 
 it wisely for the general good. In communities where 
 the fulfilment of this obligation cannot in the main be 
 relied on, the right of property cannot be granted. In 
 primitive communities there is practically no such 
 right. Everything is possessed in common. It is only 
 as men become civilized and educated that they begin 
 to be capable of being entrusted with property ; and 
 even then it is usually necessary that the right should 
 be carefully guarded against misuse. * Some writers 
 (e. g. Plato) have thought that in an ideal state there 
 ought to be a community of goods, and no right of 
 private property. But this appears to be a mistake, 
 
 1 Strictly speaking, from a purely ethical point of view, it may b 
 Baid that a man has no right to any kind of property except that 
 which he has made an essential part of his own being. Hence a 
 German writer, G. Simmel, says pointedly, " Ich habe wirklich nur 
 das was ich bin * (" Strictly speaking I possess nothing but what I 
 am ") (Einleitung in die Moralwisscnschaft, p. 172). But of course it 
 would be impossible to observe this principle in practical politics. 
 This does not, however, make it any the less important to take 
 account of it 
 
 See his Republic, Books IV. and V. The precise extent to which 
 Plato intended to carry out the principle of community is not 
 altogether clear. For a recent advocacy of communism, see If orris's 
 Ntwtfivm Now tor*.
 
 3 1 8 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. n. 
 
 Aristotle was probably right in thinking ' rather that in 
 an ideal state every one should have the free use of the 
 necessary instruments,* but should be taught to use 
 them for the common good. 
 
 (d) Contract. Another important right is the right to 
 the fulfilment of contracts. If one man engages to 
 render certain services to another, the second has the 
 right to receive these services. In primitive societies 
 there is scarcely any such thing as contract. The rela- 
 tions of men to one another are fixed almost from their 
 birth, and are altered only by force. 3 Hence it has 
 been said* that societies develop "from status to con- 
 tract" 
 
 The right of contract involves the obligation to enter 
 into no contracts except those that can be reasonably 
 fulfilled. A man is not at liberty, for instance, to con- 
 tract himself into slavery, s Nor is anyone entitled, 
 even if he were able, to enter into such a contract as 
 that of Faust with Mephistopheles. Hence the right 
 of contract, like that of property, is possible only in a 
 
 i Politics, II., v. 
 
 * Whether land, and other forms of property that are not capable 
 of being indefinitely multiplied, can be dealt with on the same prin- 
 ciple, is a much more difficult question. 
 
 8 On the other hand, in modern times, contract has become so 
 common a method of entering into relationship, that some writers 
 have been tempted to think that all relationships are founded on 
 such engagements. The State, for instance, was said to rest on a 
 "social contract" Hobbes and Rousseau were the chief upholders 
 of this view. An eloquent attack was made on it by Burke in his 
 Reflections on the Revolution in France. See Muirhead's Elements oj 
 Ethics, p. 177, note. There is a good criticism in Hume's Essays 
 (" Of the Original Contract "). * Maine's Ancient Law, chap. v. 
 
 ' Hence the fallacy of Carlyle's view, that slavery consists simply 
 in hiring a man's services for life. See his Latter-Day Pamphlets. A 
 man has no right to contract away his own freedom.
 
 6.] MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 319 
 
 highly-developed community, and even then requires 
 considerable safeguards. 
 
 (e) Education. The last right which it seems neces- 
 sary to notice here, is the right of education. In this 
 case the right and obligation are so closely united that 
 it is scarcely possible to distinguish them. Every one, 
 we may say, has both tne right and the obligation of 
 being educated according to his capacity ; since educa- 
 tion is necessary for the realization of the rational self. 
 This is a right which has been but tarcuiy recognized 
 even in some highly-civilized countries ; and even now 
 in many of them the highest kinds of education are 
 practically Inaccessible to the mass of the people. But 
 it is clear that in a well-ordered state every one ought 
 to have the means of developing his faculties to the 
 best advantage. 
 
 6. ULTIMATE MEANING OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 
 A little reflection may convince us that the ultimate 
 significance of rights and obligations is simply this. 
 We have a right to the means that are necessary for 
 the development of our lives in the direction that is 
 best for the highest good of the community of which 
 we are members ; and we are under the obligation to 
 use the means in the best way for the attainment of 
 this end." 
 
 1 Men who are in a disadvantageous position (owing to poverty, 
 lor instance) are apt to be induced to form contracts on unfair con. 
 Ji tions. It is desirable that they should be. as far as possible, guarded 
 against this 
 
 * Of course I refer here to rights anc obligations in the ethical 
 sense. To what extent, and by what means, these rights and obliga- 
 tions are to be acknowledged and enforced in actual states, are 
 questions for the political philosopher. On these subjects reference 
 may be made to Sidgwick's Elements oj Politics, especially chaps, iii, 
 vi, and chap. x.
 
 320 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. n. 
 
 7. SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS. There are various ways 
 in which men group themselves together in a society ; 
 and the relations in which they are thus brought to 
 one another are often of so much ethical significance 
 that it is desirable to notic. briefly some of the more 
 important of them, 
 
 (a) TTie Family. The faOlily is based on natural 
 affection. Its chief objects are to provide adequate 
 protection and care for the helplessness of childhood, 
 and at the Same time to provide an adequate sphere 
 for the highest forms of friendship and love. It is 
 thought that as a rule the former object can be better 
 secured by the affection of the parents than it could be 
 by any state arrangements ; * and that the latter object 
 is best fulfilled within a narrow circle. 2 The control 
 of parents, however, requires to be in many ways 
 limited. Thus it seems necessary to enforce the proper 
 education of children, and to prevent them from being 
 employed in unsuitable work at too early an age. 
 The relation of husband and wife in the family is pro- 
 perly one of equality; but where this n not secured 
 by mutual affection, it seems impossible for any state 
 regulations to prevent the subordination of one to the 
 Other, without an intolerable interference with indi- 
 
 * Plato, however, thought otherwise. See his Republic, Book V. 
 
 Among the Greeks, in the classical age, the highest forms of 
 friendship were practically always between men. The low position 
 Of women prevented them from sharing in the higher life of the 
 citizen. Greek views of the family life are almost entirely vitiated 
 by this fact ; just as their vie >' f industrial life are vitiated by their 
 Acceptance of slavery and by t eirc ntempt for all forms of manual 
 labour except agriculture. On the Family, see Hegel's Philosophy 
 of Right; also Rickabys Moral Philosophy, Part II., chap, vi, and 
 Devas's Studies of Family Life. Aristotle's treatment of the subject 
 IB ttw fint two Book* of the Politics is still highly suggestive,
 
 7-] MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 321 
 
 vidual liberty. This is, therefore, a matter on which 
 it is important to develop a strong public opinion. A 
 good deal, however, can be done by law in removing 
 disabilities which stand in the way of the recognition 
 of perfect equality. ' 
 
 (b) The Workshop. Industrial relations are strongly 
 contrasted with those of the family. They are not 
 based on mutual affection but on contract ; and they 
 are not relations of equality but of subordination. No 
 doubt, in the family also there is the subordination of 
 children to their parents ; but this is the subordination 
 of the undeveloped to the developed, of the helpless to 
 their natural protectors ; whereas in the industrial life 
 the subordination which exists is not with a view 
 to the protection or development of those who are 
 subordinated, but simply with a view to external ends. 
 In these circumstances it is important to make such re- 
 gulations as will secure fairness of contract, and prevent 
 subordination from becoming slavery. It has some- 
 times been made a matter of regret that, as civilization 
 advances, the relations of men in industrial life depart 
 more and more from the type of the family. Formerly 
 the relation between master and apprentice was almost 
 
 1 Mr. Leslie Stephen has objected (Science of Ethics, chap, Hi, 
 36-39) to the common practice of classing the family along with 
 other forms of social organization, on the ground that it rests on 
 physiological necessities, and that it is rather a basis than a result 
 of political unity. For a student of sociology or politics this con- 
 tention would, I think, have some force. The ethical significance of 
 the family, however, does not appear to me to be affected by it 
 Besides, the existence of the family, in any developed sense of the 
 term, seems to require some kind of legal or gwasi-legal sanctions, 
 enforcing acknowledged rights of marriage, whether in the form of 
 polyandry, polygamy, or monogamy. It thus presupposes social 
 organization, and varies with the growth of that organization. 
 Eth n
 
 322 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. ii 
 
 of a paternal character ; whereas now, as Carlyle used 
 to say, f there is nothing but the "cash nexus." But 
 it is doubtful whether this ought to be made a matter 
 for regret. A paternal relationship easily passes into 
 tyranny when there is no basis of natural affection. It 
 is probably best that business relationships should be 
 made a matter of pure contract This may to some 
 slight extent interfere with the development of relations 
 of mutual kindness and loyalty ; but there can be little 
 doubt that to a much greater extent it helps to prevent 
 injustice. The feelings of kindness are more likely to 
 arise in men as neighbours and fellow-citizens than as 
 masters and servants ; 2 and the practical offices of help 
 can probably be better undertaken by society as a 
 whole than by particular employers. 
 
 At the same time it cannot be doubted that anything 
 that can be done to make the relation of subordination 
 less harsh is in the highest degree desirable. For this 
 reason all forms of co-operation that are practicable 
 ought to be earnestly promoted. The question, What 
 kinds of industry ought to be encouraged or discour- 
 aged ? is also largely an ethical question ; though the 
 methods by which industries may advantageously be 
 promoted or impeded, must be left to be discussed by 
 economists and political philosophers. Under modern 
 conditions of industrial life, industries are promoted or 
 retarded chiefly 3 by changes in the demand for the 
 objects produced by them ; and these again are brought 
 
 1 See his Past and Present; and cf. below, pp. 346, 4KX 
 
 At least in the former relationship they are more likely to 
 
 become widely diffused : perhaps when they do arise in the latter 
 
 relationship, they are apt to be more intense. 
 Setting aside changes in natural conditions, and changes pro-
 
 7-] MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 323 
 
 about mainly by changes in men's tastes, fashions, 
 and habits of life. Now in so far as the objects brought 
 into demand by such changes are necessary for the 
 preservation or maintenance or advancement of human 
 life, and in so far as the industries by which they are 
 produced are not injurious to human life, there can be 
 no question about their moral justification. The ethical 
 question, therefore, arises chiefly with regard to the 
 use of what are called luxuries, and to the use of 
 objects which can be produced only by means of 
 dangerous or deleterious processes. And the question 
 which thus arises can be answered only by balancing 
 the advantages which such objects bring towards the 
 advancement of the supreme end of life against the loss 
 occasioned by their injurious effects. * 
 
 (c) The Civic Community. If men's business relations 
 are to be purely a matter of contract, it is necessary 
 that the community as a whole should undertake those 
 more paternal functions which cannot conveniently 
 be left to the care of individuals. Thk is partly the 
 business of the central government; b i to a great 
 extent it can be more conveniently man ged by each 
 district for itself. The care which has to be exercised 
 over the citizens consists in such matters as the pro- 
 vision of sanitary arrangements (including baths, and 
 
 duced by new discoveries and inventions, with which Ethics is 
 only very indirectly concerned (since the question, how far men 
 should be allowed to make and utilize new discoveries can scarcely 
 at the present time be regarded as a practical one). 
 
 1 There have been several interesting discussions of Luxury in re- 
 cent times. See, for instance, Bosanquet's Civilization of Christen' 
 dom, MacCunn's Ethics of Citizenship, L. Stephen's Social flights and 
 Duties, Smart's Studies in Economics, and the article by iVofessoc 
 Sidgwick in the International Journal of Ethics^ VoL V. no. i
 
 324 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. n, 
 
 the like), the means of education (including well- 
 furnished public libraries), the enforcement of pre- 
 cautions against accidents, the prevention of adultera- 
 tion of foods and other forms of deception, and the 
 securing of the means of livelihood to those who are 
 incapacitated for labour. The discussion of the details 
 of such provisions, and of the question whether they 
 can be best managed by a central authority or by local 
 administrations, must be left to writers on Politics. 
 
 (d) The Church, The paternal care of the citizens, 
 however, cannot be fully provided by any form of civic 
 machinery. There must always be a certain hardness 
 in all such machinery, which must be managed on 
 a basis of law and not of affection. Hence it is 
 necessary that it should be supplemented by more per- 
 sonal relations among the citizens. A centre for such 
 personal relationships is furnished by the Church, 
 whose function it is to secure the carrying out of the 
 highest moral ideal in human relationships. It is 
 greatly to be regretted that differences of religious 
 opinion prevent the Church from being so efficient 
 in this way as it might otherwise be. There can be 
 little doubt that in the Middle Ages, under the sway of 
 Catholicism, its work was more efficiently done if it 
 Is in reality possible to compare the action of institu- 
 tions under very different conditions of social life. 
 Perhaps it may be found necessary to supplement the 
 work of the Churches by unsectarian ethical institutions. 
 But the discussion of this question would not be suitable 
 for an elementary text-book ; * and indeed it could 
 
 \ It is, however, discussed at considerable length by Prof. Gizydd 
 in hia Introduction to the Study oj Ethics (Dr. Colt's adaptation), chap 
 fc
 
 MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 32$ 
 
 scarcely be satisfactorily answered without introducing 
 considerations that are not of a purely ethical char- 
 acter. The same remark applies to the discussion of 
 the important question of the right relation of the 
 Churches to the State. 
 
 (e) The State. The State is the supreme controller 
 of all social relationships. It makes laws and sees that 
 they are enforced. It also carries on various kinds of 
 work that cannot conveniently be left to private en- 
 terprise. It undertakes, for instance, the provision of 
 the means of national defence, the conveyance of 
 letters, and in some countries the conducting of rail- 
 ways. The extent to which it is desirable that such 
 work should be undertaken by the State, cannot be 
 discussed in an ethical treatise. But it is important to 
 insist that any one who seeks to answer this question, 
 must answer it by a consideration of the degree to 
 which such action tends to promote the highest life of 
 the citizens of the State. 
 
 (/) Friendship. These are some of the leading 
 forms of social unity, but the relationships between 
 human beings, through which the moral life is devel- 
 oped, are not exhausted by these. Such a relationship 
 as that of individual friendship has also to be noted. 
 This was a form of unity to which the ancient Greek 
 writers on Ethics gave special attention, and, in par- 
 ticular, it rose into the highest degree of prominence in 
 the speculations of the Epicureans, with whom it may 
 almost be said to have taken the place of the State. In 
 modern times the expansion of man's social universe 
 through books, travel, &c. , may have somewhat dimin- 
 ished the significance of these closer personal ties ; but 
 it still remains true that in a friend a man may find ao
 
 ETHICS. [3K. III., CH. IL 
 
 alter ego through whom the universe of his personality is 
 enlarged in a more perfect way than is possible by any 
 other form of relationship, especially in cases of ideal 
 friendship like that of Tennyson and Hallam, when it 
 can be said, "He was rich where I was poor." This 
 also, however, is a form of relationship to which we 
 can do nothing more than allude. * 
 
 8. SOCIAI- PROGRESS. -All the institutions to which 
 reference has now been made, are continually under- 
 going changes, which are rendered necessary by the 
 progressive civilization of mankind. In carrying out 
 such changes it is important to see that they are not 
 made with a view to merely temporary advantages, 
 and that the advantages which they secure are not 
 bought with any loss of human efficiency. The ulti- 
 mate standard by which all progress must be tested is 
 the realization of the rational self. Material and social 
 progress is valuable only in so far as it is a means 
 to this. The nature of this progress will be somewhat 
 more fully considered in a succeeding chapter. 
 
 9. INDIVIDUALISM AND SOCIALISM. In recent times 
 discussions with regard to social progress have ap- 
 peared chiefly in the form of the question, whether we 
 ought to move in an individualistic or in a socialistic 
 direction. Individualists think that it is chiefly impor- 
 tant to secure, as far as possible, the freedom of action 
 of the individual citizens. Socialists, on the other 
 hand, think that what is chiefly desirable is to regulate 
 the actions of individuals so as to secure the good of 
 all. It does not appear, however, that there is any 
 
 i The discussion of Friendship in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics 
 Is perhaps still the best that we have. See also MacCunns Ethics 
 9j Citizenship, IL
 
 9-] MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 327 
 
 real opposition between the principles of Individualism 
 and of Socialism. ' The good of all can certainly not 
 be secured if the nature of each is cramped and under- 
 fed; nor can freedom be allowed to each except on the 
 assumption that that freedom will on the whole be used 
 for the good of all. The question that ought to be 
 asked is In what directions is it desirable to give men 
 more freedom, and in what directions is it desirable 
 that their actions should be more controlled? It is a 
 question of detail, and it must be answered differently 
 at different stages of human development. Perhaps at 
 the present time it is chiefly in the socialistic direction 
 that advance is demanded. But the reason is simply 
 that in recent generations the individualistic side has 
 been too strongly insisted on. This again is mainly 
 due to the fact that in recent times the main social 
 advance has consisted in the emancipation of highly- 
 skilled labour from cumbersome restraints. The pro- 
 blem of the next age is rather that of providing a truly 
 human life for those who are less skilled and capable, 
 and who are consequently less able to look after their 
 own interests. The former advance could be made by 
 individualistic methods : the latter seems to demand a 
 certain degree of Socialism. a But here again we can 
 do no more than indicate, quite generally and roughly, 
 the nature of the problem involved. 
 
 1 From the point of view of Ethics, we may say that both Indi- 
 vidualism and Socialism supply us with economic commandments. 
 The commandment of Individualism is Thou shalt not pauperize ; 
 or Every one must be allowed to work out his own salvation. The 
 commandment of Socialism is Thou shalt not exploit, or No one 
 must be used as a mere means to any one else's salvation. 
 
 This subject is treated with considerable ful ness by Prof. Paulsen 
 In his System dcr Ethik, voL ii. Book IV. iii., 3. On the general sub-
 
 328 ETHICS. [BK. m., CH. n. 
 
 Jecl of Socialism as a question of practical politics, the student ma; 
 consult Sidgwick's Principles of Political Economy, Book III., chaps. 
 U vii, and Elements of Politics, chap. x. See also his Methods oj 
 Ethics, Book III., chap. v. Reference may also be made to Mon- 
 tague's Limits of Individual Liberty, Ritchie's Principles of State Inter- 
 ference, Schaffle's Quintessence of Socialism, Conner's Socialist State, 
 Kirkup's Inquiry into Socialism, Rae's Contemporary Socialism, 
 Graham's Socialism New and Old, Rickaby's Moral Philosophy, Gil- 
 man's Socialism and the American Spirit, McKechnie's The State and 
 the Individual, Donisthorpe's Individualism, &c. A singularly 
 searching examination of the ideas underlying Individualism and 
 Socialism has lately appeared in Mr. Bosanquet's Civilization of 
 Christendom. The recent discussions in the International Journal 
 oj Ethics, Vols. VI. and VII. are also valuable.
 
 MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 329 
 
 NOTE ON JUSTICE. 
 
 Anything like a complete discussion of the difficult conception of 
 Justice would evidently be quite beyond the scope of such a text, 
 book as this. But a few remarks seem to be called for. 
 
 Much confusion has arisen in the treatment of this subject from a 
 failure to observe an ambiguity in the term which was well known 
 even to Plato and Aristotle, but which some modern writers seem to 
 have forgotten. The term "Justice* is used in two distinct senses. 
 We speak of a "just man,* and we speak of a " just law" or a "just 
 government" Just, in the former sense, means almost the same as 
 morally good : it means morally good in respect to the fulfilment of 
 social obligations. Justice, then, in this sense is equivalent to all 
 virtue in its social aspect 1 On the other hand, when we speak of a 
 just law or a just government, we mean one that is fair or impartial ' 
 in dealing with those to whom it applies or over whom it rules. 8 This 
 ambiguity in the use of the term is partly concealed by the fact that 
 we sometimes speak of a man as being just in the same sense as that 
 in which the term is applied to a law or government viz. in those 
 cases in which a man occupies a position of authority (as a judge, a 
 king, or even a parent), so as to be a representative of law or govern- 
 ment Hence many writers have failed to perceive that there are 
 two senses in which the term is used. The confusion between these 
 two senses vitiates, for example, nearly all that is said about Justice 
 in the fifth chapter of Mill's Utilitarianism. The influence of the same 
 ambiguity seems, moreover, to be not without effect even on some 
 
 1 See Aristotle's Ethics, Book V., chap. L Sometimes, however, 
 when we speak of a " just man " we mean merely one who fulfils 
 those obligations that are enforced by positive law. Cf. below, 
 chap, iil, iz But I do not think that this use of the term is 
 common, or to be commended. 
 
 a Ibid., chap, ii 
 
 * Justice is derived from the Latin jus, law. This again is cognate 
 with jussum, meaning what is ordered. A just man means one who 
 obeys orders, i. e. the moral orders or laws. A just law or govern- 
 ment on the other hand, means one that possesses the qualities that 
 belong to, or ought to belong to, a law (jus) viz. in particular, the 
 quality of fairness or impartiality.
 
 33O ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. n. 
 
 more recent writers. Dr. Sidgwick carefully distinguishes * between 
 the two senses of Justice now referred to, and states that he intends 
 to confine himself to the second. Nevertheless, one of his illustra 
 tions appears to refer to Justice rather in the first sense. He remarks * 
 that we cannot say, " in treating of the private conduct of individuals, 
 that all arbitrary inequality is recognized as unjust : it would not be 
 commonly thought unjust in a rich bachelor with no near relatives 
 to leave the bulk of his property in providing pensions exclusively 
 for indigent red-haired men, however unreasonable and capricious 
 the choice might appear." When it is said that this is not unjust, 
 does not this mean simply that it is not contrary to any recognized 
 moral obligation ? And is not the term, therefore, used in its first 
 sense ? If a law, or a government, or even a parent in dealing 
 with his children, were to exhibit any similar caprice to that here 
 supposed by Dr. Sidgwick, would not this be at once regarded as 
 unjust ? In such a case, we should be using the term in its second 
 sense. The person supposed by Dr. Sidgwick is not said to be un- 
 just, apparently simply for the reason that he is not in a position in 
 which Justice, in this sense, can be predicated of him at all. A man 
 cannot, in this sense, be either just or unjust, unless he represents 
 some form of law or government 
 
 But there is a still further ambiguity in the use of the term. And 
 this also was pointed out by Aristotle. 8 In speaking of Justice in the 
 sense of fairness, we may be referring either to the apportionment 
 of goods or to the apportionment of evils. Now evil can be fairly 
 apportioned only to those who have done evil i. e. as punishment 
 Justice, then, may be either distributive or corrective. But some- 
 times the term is used emphatically in the latter sense as if this were 
 its exclusive use. To " do justice * is frequently understood as mean- 
 ing simply to award punishment Thus, there is an ambiguity be- 
 tween the broader sense of the term, including distributive and cor- 
 rective Justice, and the narrower sense in which it is confined to the 
 latter. Mill seems to have been misled by this ambiguity also. 
 Thus, when he says that " the two essential ingredients in the senti- 
 ment of Justice are, the desire to punish a person who has done 
 harm, and the knowledge or belief that there is some definite in- 
 dividual or individuals to whom harm has been done," he seems to 
 
 > Methods of Ethics, p. 264- 
 
 * Ibid., p, 268-9, note. 
 
 Op. tit, Book V., chap. ii.
 
 MORAL INSTITUTIONS. 331 
 
 be referring exclusively to corrective Justice, without being aware 
 that he is dealing only with a part of the subject 
 
 As far as I can judge, Aristotle's treatment of the whole subject of 
 Justice is still the best that we have. Dr. Sidgwick's treatment, 
 however, to which reference has just been made, has of course the 
 advantage of being more fully adapted to modern conditions of 
 knowledge and practice.
 
 33* ETHICS. IBK. in., CH. ni. 
 
 CHAPTER IIL 
 
 THE DUTIES. 
 
 1. NATURE OF MORAL LAWS. The Jews, by whom 
 the moral consciousness of the modern world has been 
 perhaps mainly determined, 1 summed up their view of 
 duty in the form of ten commandments. And we find 
 in other nations also a certain more or less explicit 
 recognition of definite rules to which a good man must 
 adhere rules which say expressly, Do this, Abstain 
 from that. 1 Now, in the moral "ought, "as we have 
 so far considered it, there are no such explicit com- 
 
 1 It is hard to say whether the Jews or the Greeks have had most 
 influence on us in this respect See Hatch's Hibbert Lectures ; and 
 cf., for a vigorous but very paradoxical view of the same subject, 
 Duhring's Ersatz der Religion. 
 
 * The Greeks had no definite code of moral rules. Their earliest 
 moral wisdom was expressed rather in brief proverbial sayings, such 
 as fi>)8ii' AY<XV (" nothing to excess *). Among the Greeks, however, as 
 among all early peoples, the laws of the State furnished a basis for 
 moral obligation, just as a child's first ideas of duty are derived from 
 the commands of its parents. The dawning of the consciousness that 
 there is a deeper basis of moral obligation than State laws is illus- 
 trated in the A ntigone of Sophocles. It was largely because the early 
 Greeks had no clear distinction between the moral law and the laws 
 of the State that the criticisms of the Sophists (and to some extent of 
 Socrates) were felt to be subversive of morality. See Zeller's Pre- 
 Socratic Philosophy, vol. il, p. 404, and Socrates and the Socratic Schools, 
 pp. 219221. It is noteworthy also that the absoluteness of the Jew- 
 ish Law showed signs of breaking down, as soon as the Jews had 
 lost their national independence. Cf. above, Book I., chap. V.
 
 I.] THE DUTIES. 333 
 
 mands contained. There is only the general command 
 to realize the rational self. We must now consider 
 what is the place of particular rules within this general 
 commandment 
 
 What has been said in the last chapter may help 
 us to do this. For we have seen there that there are 
 certain definite, though at the same time somewhat 
 elastic and modifiable, rights that come to be gradually 
 recognized in human societies ; and these definite 
 rights bring definite obligations along with them. Such 
 obligations may be expressed in the form of command- 
 ments. 
 
 It is not merely, however, in connection with these 
 recognized rights that such obligations arise. Obliga- 
 tions arise in connection with all the institutions of 
 social life, and in connection with all the relationships 
 into which men are brought to one another. No doubt 
 there is a certain right corresponding to all such obli- 
 gations, just as there is an obligation corresponding 
 to every right. * But sometimes it is the right that is 
 obvious, and the obligation seems to follow it, whereas 
 in other cases it is the obligation that is more easily 
 recognized. In the preceding chapter we have con- 
 sidered some of the more prominent rights and institu- 
 
 1 Rights are also for the most part connected with definite institu- 
 tions, or forms of social organization. Hence duties alto tend to 
 cluster round them. Thus, Mr. Alexander says (Moral Order and 
 Progress, p. 253) that " Duties are the conduct ... by which institu- 
 tions are maintained ": "the duty of recording a vote . . . gives effect 
 to the institution of parliamentary franchise." It seems an exagger- 
 ation, however, to say that all duties are related to institutions in this 
 way. The duty of regard for life, for instance, seems to be inde- 
 pendent of any special institutions unless we are to describe life 
 iUolf a an " institution," which would be somewhat paradoxical
 
 334 ETHICS. BK. in., CH. 111. 
 
 tions that have grown up in social life. In this chapter 
 we are to consider the more prominent obligations that 
 have come to be recognized among men, as presenting 
 themselves in the form of commandments, and to try 
 to bring out the precise ethical significance of these 
 elements in the moral consciousness. In the one case, 
 as in the other, it would probably be useless to attempt 
 to give an exhaustive classification. 
 
 2. RESPECT FOR LIFE. The first commandment is 
 the commandment to respect life, corresponding directly 
 to the right of life. This commandment is expressed 
 in the form, Thou shall not kill ; and its meaning is 
 so obvious that it requires little comment. We must 
 merely observe that the commandment which bids us 
 have respect for life enjoins much more than the mere 
 passive abstinence from the destruction of another's 
 physical existence. It involves also the care of our 
 own, and the avoidance of anything likely to injure 
 either our own or another's physical well-being. How 
 much this implies, we are only gradually learning. 
 Mr. Herbert Spencer has done admirable service in 
 emphasizing this side of moral law. 1 
 
 3. RESPECT FOR FREEDOM. The second command- 
 ment corresponds to the right of Freedom. It forbids 
 any interference with the development of another man's 
 life, except in so far as such interference may be re- 
 quired to help on that development itself. It may be 
 expressed in the form, Treat every human being as a 
 person, never as a mere thing. In this form, it may 
 
 1 See especially his Data of Ethics, chap. xL, and The Principle*- 
 of Ethics, Part III. Cf. also Clark Murray's Introduction to Ethics, 
 Book IL, Part II., chap, il, and Adieus Moral Instruction lo Children 
 Lecture XIL
 
 4-] THE DUTIES. 335 
 
 be regarded as forbidding slavery, despotism, exploita- 
 tion, prostitution, and every other form f the use of 
 another as a mere means to one's own ends. This 
 commandment and the preceding one are closely con- 
 nected together. They might, in fact, be regarded as 
 one ; for the destruction of the life of another is simply 
 an extreme form of interference with his free develop- 
 ment. There is also a third commandment which is 
 closely connected with these two, and which we may 
 notice next. 
 
 4. RESPECT FOR CHARACTER. This may be stated as 
 the commandment to respect character. It is the posi- 
 tive of which the two preceding are the negative. It 
 not merely forbids us to injure our neighbour or to do 
 anything that will interfere with his free development, 
 but also positively bids us observe, as far as we can, 
 what will further him. It was of this commandment 
 that St. Paul was thinking when he said, "All things 
 are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient' 1 
 By the ordinary negative law he was permitted to do 
 anything that did not positively injure another ; but he 
 was conscious that, in addition to this, he ought to 
 abstain from anything that would tend to prevent the 
 furtherance of another in his development. To partake 
 of certain meats would not interfere either with the 
 life or with the freedom of any one ; but, having re- 
 gard to the stage of development at which they stand, 
 we may be aware that it would be injurious to them. 
 Of course, we might regard this principle as simply an 
 extension of the negative principle of respect for free- 
 dom. But perhaps it is better to regard it as positive ; 
 for when we thus have regard for the stage of develop- 
 ment at which any one stands, we shall be led not
 
 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. III. 
 
 merely to abstain from that which will injure him, but 
 also to do that which will help him. The simplest way 
 of summing up this commandment is perhaps to say, 
 in Hegel's 1 language, "Be a person, and respect others 
 as persons." 
 
 5. RESPECT FOR PROPERTY. The next commandment 
 is, Thou shalt not steal. This is simply acarryingout 
 of the preceding. It forbids any appropriation of the 
 instruments of another's well-being, whether they be 
 material things that belong to him, or such goods as 
 time, reputation, and the like. This commandment is, 
 as I say, involved in the preceding. For the develop- 
 ment of a man's personality involves the use of instru- 
 ments ; and the right of an individual to appropriate 
 these involves the obligation on the part of all others 
 of leaving his possession of them inviolate. The com- 
 mandment to respect property ought, however, to be 
 regarded as involving something more than the mere 
 condemnation of theft. It involves regard for our own 
 property as well as that of others. It condemns, there- 
 fore, any neglect or abuse of the instruments which an 
 individual has appropriated. It may also be regarded 
 as condemning all forms of idleness that imply living 
 on the work of others, and so appropriating what be- 
 longs to them. 
 
 6. RESPECT FOR SOCIAL ORDER. To avoid unneces- 
 sary details, we may next consider what is rather a 
 group of commandments than a single rule viz. those 
 commandments that are connected with respect for 
 social institutions and the various forms of social order. 
 Such respect is pretty nearly equivalent to what the 
 
 ^Philosophic dcsRechts. 36
 
 f 7.] THE DUTIES. 337 
 
 Greeks used to call al8a>s, shame or reverence. This 
 feeling forbids us to interfere unnecessarily with any 
 established institution. It forbids, for instance, any 
 violation of the sanctities of the family ; it enjoins that 
 we should "honour the king" and all constituted au- 
 thorities ; * and the like. The authority of this group of 
 commandments rests on the importance of maintaining 
 the social system to which we belong. The soldier 
 feels himself in general bound to carry out the com- 
 mands of his superior, even if he knows very well that 
 "some one has blundered" ; and in the same way the 
 citizen feels bound in general to give his support to 
 the constituted authorities of his state, even if he sees 
 clearly that their laws are not altogether wise. Occa- 
 sionally also a pol/tician may feel himself bound to act 
 with his party, even if he does not approve of some 
 detail in its policy. Evidently this group of command- 
 ments might be split up into a number of separate 
 rules. But it is so easy to do this, that it is scarcely 
 worth while to attempt it here. 
 
 7. RESPECT FOR TRUTH. The next commandment 
 is, Thou shalt not lie. This rule has a double appli- 
 cation. On the one hand, it may be taken to mean 
 that we should conform our actions to our words 
 
 1 It has already been remarked (p. 287, note 2) that " is almost 
 equivalent to conscience. Since, however, the moral obligations of 
 the early Greeks were connected entirely with social laws and in- 
 stitutions, it was almost entirely with these that the feeling of aifcif 
 was associated. 
 
 3 I need hardly say that this rule is not to be understood as exclud- 
 ing the right of revolution. As we shall shortly see, none of these 
 rules is to be regarded as absolutely binding. Just as a Nelson may 
 look at the signals of his superior officer with his blind eye, so a far- 
 seeing social reformer may defy the laws of his state. But it is onlj 
 IB exceptional circumstances that such conduct is justifiable. 
 Etk ta
 
 338 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. IIL 
 
 that, for instance, we should fulfil our promises, and 
 observe the contracts into which we have entered. 
 On the other hand, it may be taken to mean that we 
 should conform our words to our thoughts i. e. that 
 we should say what we mean. Evidently, these two 
 interpretations are quite different. A man may make 
 a promise which he does not mean to keep. In that 
 case, he lies in the second sense. But it does not fol- 
 low that he will necessarily lie in the first sense. Foi; 
 having made the promise, he may keep it. Still, both 
 senses are concerned with respect for the utterance of 
 our thoughts though the latter is concerned with care 
 in the utterance of them, the former with care in con- 
 forming our actions to that which has been uttered. 
 Lying, however, ought not to be understood as re- 
 ferring merely to language. We lie by our actions, 
 if we do things in such a way as to imply that we 
 intend to do something else, or that we have done 
 something else, which in fact we neither have done 
 nor intend to do. The commandment, then, Thou 
 shalt not lie, may be taken to mean that we must 
 always so speak and act as to express as clearly as 
 possible what we believe to be true, or what we intend 
 to perform; and that, having expressed our mean- 
 ing, we must as far as possible conform our actions 
 to it 
 
 8. RESPECT FOR PROGRESS. The last commandment 
 of which it seems necessary to take notice, is the com- 
 mandment too often overlooked in moral codes 
 which bids us help on, as far as we can, the advance- 
 ment of the world. It may be expressed in this form, 
 Thou shalt labour, within thy particular province, 
 with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all
 
 9-] THE DUTIES. 339 
 
 thy strength and with all thy mind. ' It is not without 
 reason that I express this commandment in the same 
 form as that in which the love of God has been en- 
 joined. It was wisely said, Laborare est orare, Work 
 is Worship. The love of God is perhaps most clearly 
 shown by faith in human progress; and faith in it 
 is shown most clearly by devotion to it. 2 With 
 this great positive commandment, we may conclude 
 our list. 
 
 9. CASUISTRY. I have made no great effort to re- 
 duce these commandments to system. It might be a 
 good exercise for the student to work them out more 
 in detail, and show their relations to one another. 
 But it seems clear that no system of commandments 
 can ever be made quite satisfactory. There can be 
 but one supreme law the law which bids us realize 
 the rational self or universe ; and if we make any sub- 
 ordinate rules absolute, they are sure to come into 
 conflict. Such a conflict of rules gives rise to casu- 
 istry. Casuistry consists in the effort to interpret the 
 precise meaning of the commandments, and to explain 
 which is to give way when a conflict arises. 3 It is 
 evident enough that conflicts must arise. If we 
 are always to respect life, we must sometimes appro- 
 priate property e. g. the knife of a man about to 
 commit murder. If we are always to do our utmost 
 
 This is Carlyle's commandment " Know what thou canst work 
 at; and work at it, like a Hercules " (Past and Present,Book III., 
 chap. xi.). 
 
 " All true work is religion " (Carlyle, ibid., chap. xil). 
 
 See Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, p. 88, Muirhead's Elements of Ethics 
 p. 69-70, Caird's Critical Philosophy of Kant, vol. iL, pp. 186igo, and 
 p, 215, and Bradley s Ethical Sbidits, p. 142.
 
 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. IIL 
 
 for freedom, we shall sometimes come into conflict 
 with order. So in other cases. We have already 
 quoted the emphatic utterance of Jacobi on this point ; 
 and though it may be somewhat exaggerated, yet it 
 cannot be denied that there are occasions in which 
 we feel bound to break one or more of the command- 
 ments in obedience to a higher law. Now casuistry 
 seeks to draw out rules for breaking the rules to 
 show the exact circumstances in which we are en- 
 titled to violate particular commandments. This effort 
 is chiefly associated historically with the teaching of 
 the Jesuits.* It was called "casuistry" because it 
 dealt with "cases of conscience." It fell into dis- 
 repute, and was severely attacked by Pascal. And on 
 the whole rightly. It is bad enough that we should 
 require particular rules of conduct at all, 3 but rules 
 for the breaking of rules would be quite intolerable. 
 They would become so complicated that it would be 
 impossible to follow them out ; and any such attempt 
 would almost inevitably lead in practice to a system by 
 which men might justify, to their own satisfaction, any 
 action whatever. * The way to escape from the limita- 
 tions of the commandments, is not to make other 
 commandments more minute and subtle, but rather to 
 fall back upon the great fundamental law, of which 
 
 i See above, pp. 198-9. 
 
 a See Sidgwick's History of Ethics, pp. 151154. 
 
 * The expression of the moral law in the form of particular rules 
 belongs to an early stage in moral development It naturally comes 
 immediately after that stage in which morality is identified with the 
 laws of the State. Cf. Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, pp. 6873. 
 
 * Hence Adam Smith says (Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part VL, 
 sect. IV.) that "books of casuistry are generally as useless as they are 
 Commonly tiresome.*
 
 10.] THE DUTIES. 34! 
 
 the particular commandments are but fragmentary 
 aspects. 
 
 10. THE SUPREME LAW. What is that fundamental 
 law? It is, as we have already seen, the command- 
 ment that bids us realize the rational self. This 
 commandment is so broad, and is apt to seem so 
 vague, that it is certainly well that it should be sup- 
 plemented, for practical purposes, by more particular 
 rules of conduct. But when these rules come into 
 conflict, and when we feel ourselves in a difficulty with 
 regard to the course that we ought to pursue when, 
 in short, a " case of conscience " arises we must fall 
 back upon the supreme commandment, and ask our- 
 selves : Is the course that we think of pursuing the 
 one that is most conducive to the realization of the 
 rule of reason in the world ? No doubt this is a ques- 
 tion which it will often be difficult to answer. * But, 
 
 1 Sometimes it may be easier to answer in the form of feeling. The 
 commandments in which the Jewish Law was summed up " Thou 
 shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c., and thy neighbour 
 as thyself "express the right attitude of feeling, that of love for the 
 supreme reason and for all rational beings. In the form of feeling, 
 however, there is the disadvantage that the definite duties to be per- 
 formed are not suggested, whereas the command to pursue the ad- 
 vancement of the rational life suggests at once the means that must 
 be adopted for this end. At the same time, it is important to insist 
 that the right attitude of mind necessarily brings with it the right 
 form of feeling. To this point we have already referred (Book I., 
 chap, iii , 5, and Book II., chap, iii., 13). We have seen that Kant 
 refused to regard love as a duty, interpreting the Christian injunction 
 as meaning merely that we should treat others as r/ we loved them. 
 But, as Adam Smith remarked (Theory of Moral Sentiments. Part 
 III., sect III., chap, iv.); this could scarcely be described as loving 
 our neighbour as ourselves ; since " we love ourselves surely for our 
 own sakes, and not merely because we are commanded to do so." 
 On the same point, Janet has well quoted (Theory of Morals, p. 354) 
 the emphatic utterance of St Paul, " Though I bestow all my goods
 
 342 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. in. 
 
 in general, a man who keeps his conscience un- 
 clouded, and sets this question fairly before himself 
 will be able to keep himself practically clear from 
 errors, without resorting to casuistical distinctions. * 
 
 11. CONVENTIONAL RULES. Besides the command- 
 ments, or strict moral laws, we find in every com- 
 munity a number of subordinate rules of conduct, in- 
 ferior in authority, but often superior in the obedience 
 which they elicit. Such are, for instance, the rules of 
 courtesy, those rules that belong to the "Code of 
 Honour," the etiquette of particular trades and particu- 
 lar classes of society.* There is often a certain absurd- 
 ity in these rules ; and some of them are frequently 
 laughed at under the name of "Mrs. Grundy." Cer- 
 tainly a superstitious devotion to them, a devotion 
 which interferes with the fulfilment of more important 
 duties or with the development of independence of 
 character, is not to be commended. Yet sometimes 
 such rules are not without reason. Schiller tells us, in 
 a wise passage of his Wallenstein,* that we ought not 
 to despise the narrow conventional laws ; for they were 
 often invented as a safeguard against various forms of 
 wrong and injustice. Pectus sibi permissum is not less 
 to be distrusted than intellectus sibi per missus / and it is 
 often well that the impulses of a man's own heart 
 should be checked by certain generally understood con- 
 to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have 
 not charity, it profiteth me nothing." 
 
 i See, on this point, Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, Book IV 
 chap. ii. 
 
 * Sometimes referred to as " minor morals." 
 
 * Die Piccolomini, Act I., scene iv. 
 
 " Lass uns die alten engen Ordnungen 
 Gering nicht achten 1 "
 
 12.] THE DUTIES. 343 
 
 mentions. * The law of respect for social order, at any 
 rate, will generally lead a man to follow the established 
 custom, when no more important principle is thereby 
 violated. Still, this is not a matter of supreme impor- 
 tance. A scrupulous adhesion to petty rules is no 
 doubt as foolish as a total neglect of them. Eccen- 
 tricity has its place in the moral life ; and there are 
 certainly many customs which are "more honoured in 
 the breach than the observance." Perhaps the ten- 
 dency at the present time a result of our individual- 
 istic modes of thought is to attach too little impor- 
 tance to general rules of life. The Chinese, however, 
 under the influence of Confucius, seem to have gone 
 to the other extreme. 
 
 12. DUTIES OF PERFECT AND IMPERFECT OBLIGATION. 
 The impossibility of drawing out any absolute code of 
 duties has led some writers to draw a distinction be- 
 tween that part of our obligations which can be defi- 
 nitely codified and that part which must be left com- 
 paratively vague. This distinction has taken various 
 forms. Sometimes those obligations which are capable 
 of precise definition are called duties ; while that part 
 of good conduct which cannot be so definitely formu- 
 lated is classed under the head of virtue as if the vir- 
 tuous man were one who did more than his duty, more 
 than could reasonably be demanded of him." Again, 
 
 1 Indeed, such rules are often more useful in small matters than 
 in great ; just because the small matters interest us less. Cf. below, 
 13, note. 
 
 * There can be no doubt that this is a common use of the term 
 " Virtue " in ordinary language. Perhaps it is even the original sense 
 of the word. It certainly seems to have been at first applied to those 
 qualities that appeared most eminent and praiseworthy. See Alex- 
 aader's Mor*l Order and Progress, p. 243 ; " The distinctive mark of
 
 344 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. HI, 
 
 Mill ' classifies strict duties under the head of Justice ; 
 and adds that " there are other things, on the contrary, 
 which we wish that people should do, which we like 
 or admire them for doing, but yet admit that they are 
 not bound to do ; it is not a case of moral obligation. " 
 But surely we have a moral obligation to act in the best 
 way possible. Another distinction is that given by 
 Kant* between Duties of Perfect and Imperfect Obliga- 
 tion. According to this classification, Duties of Perfect 
 Obligation are those in which a definite demand is 
 made upon us, without any qualification as, Thou 
 shall not kill, Thou shall not lie, Thou shall nol steal. 
 These are, for the most part, negative. On the other 
 hand, most of our positive obligations cannot be stated 
 in this absolute way. The duty of beneficence, for 
 instance, is relative to time, place, and circumstance. 
 
 virtue seems to lie in what is beyond duty : yet every such act must 
 depend on the peculiar circumstances under which it is done, of 
 which we leave the agent to be the judge, and we certainly think it 
 his duty to do what is best" Cf. Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, p. 
 190, note. See also Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part 
 I., sect II., chap, iv., Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics, Book III., chap. 
 ii, Rickaby*s Moral Philosophy, p. 70, 
 
 i Utilitarianism, chap. v. Some other writers have limited the 
 application of the term Justice to those actions which can be enforced 
 by national law. Thus Adam Smith says (Theory of Moral Senti- 
 ments, Part II., sect II., chap, i.) : "The man who barely abstains 
 from violating either the person, or the estate, or the reputation of 
 his neighbours, has surely very little positive merit He fulfils, how- 
 ever, all the rules of what is peculiarly called justice, and does every- 
 thing which his equals can with propriety force him to do, or which 
 they can punish him for not doing. We may often fulfil all the rules 
 of justice by sitting still and doing nothing." Cf. the Note at the 
 end of chap, x 
 
 * Metaphysic of Morals, section II. (Abbott's translation, p. 39) 
 Observe what is said in Mr. Abbott's note. Cf, also Caird'a Critical 
 Philosophy of Kant, vol. il, pp. 383-3.
 
 12.] THE DUTIES. 345 
 
 No man can be under an obligation to do good in all 
 sorts of ways, but only in some particular ways, which 
 he must in general discover for himself. Hence this 
 may be called an Imperfect Obligation, because it can- 
 not be definitely formulated. 
 
 Now it is no doubt true that there is a distinction of 
 this kind. There is, indeed, a threefold distinction be- 
 tween duties of different kinds. There are, in the first 
 place, those duties that can be definitely formulated, 
 and embodied in the laws of a State, 1 with penalties 
 attached to their violation. In the second place, there 
 are those duties that cannot be put into the form of 
 national laws, or that it would be very inconvenient to 
 put into such a form, but which, nevertheless, every 
 good citizen may be expected to observe. In the third 
 place, there are duties which we may demand of some, 
 but not of others; or which different individuals can 
 only be expected to fulfil in varying degrees.* But the 
 distinction between these different classes of duties is 
 not a rigid one. The duties that can be made obliga- 
 tory by law vary from time to time, according to the 
 constitution of the State concerned, and the degree of 
 the civilization of its people. The same applies to those 
 duties that every good citizen may fairly be expected 
 to observe. Consequently, while at any given time 
 and place it might be possible to draw out a list of the 
 
 i This was the original meaning of Duties of Perfect Obligation. 
 Kant altered the use of the phrase. Some points in connection with 
 the relation between Ethics and Jurisprudence will be found well 
 brought out in Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part VI., 
 sect IV. 
 
 a The fulfilment of these in an eminent degree might be said to 
 constitute Virtue, as distinguished from Duty, in the sense explained 
 above. But this is on the whole an inconvenient usage.
 
 346 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. III. 
 
 Duties of Perfect Obligation, and to express them in a 
 code of Commandments, yet the tables of stone on 
 which these were engraved would require to be periodi- 
 cally broken up.' And many of the most important 
 duties for any particular individual would remain un- 
 formulated. 
 
 13. MY STATION AND ITS DUTIES. The determination 
 of a man's duties, therefore, must be left largely to his 
 individual insight Ethics can do little more than lay 
 down commandments with regard to his general atti- 
 tude in acting. In the details of his action, however, 
 a man is not left entirely without guidance. Human 
 beings do not drop from the clouds. Men are born 
 with particular aptitudes and in a particular environ- 
 ment ; and they generally find their sphere of activity 
 marked out for them, within pretty narrow limits. 
 They find themselves fixed in a particular station, help- 
 ing to carry forward a general system of life ; and their 
 chief duties are connected with the effective execution 
 of their work. Hence the force of Carlyle's great 
 principle, " Do the Duty that lies nearest thee." 1 The 
 
 1 This of course is no sufficient reason for not formulating them as 
 well as we can. As Hegel says (Philosophy of Right, 216), " The 
 universal law cannot be forever the ten commandments. Yet it 
 would be absurd to refuse to set up the law 'Thou shalt not kill ' on 
 the ground that a statute-book cannot be made complete. Every 
 statute-book can of course be better. It is patent to the most idle 
 reflection that the most excellent, noble, and beautiful can be con- 
 ceived of as still more excellent, noble, and beautiful A large old 
 tree branches more and more without becoming a new tree in the 
 process ; it would be folly, however, not to plant a new tree for the 
 reason that it was destined in time to have new branches." 
 
 8 Sartor Rccartus, Book II., chap. ix. : "The situation that has not 
 its Duty, its Ideal, was never yet occupied by man." See also the 
 admirable chapter by Mr. Bradley on " My Station and its Duties "
 
 1 3.] THE DUTIES. 347 
 
 prime duty of a workman of any kind is to do his work 
 well, to be a good workman. ' Of course he must first 
 have ascertained that his work is a valuable one, and 
 one that he is fitted to do well. Having thus found his 
 place in life, he will not as a rule have much difficulty 
 in ascertaining what are the commandments that apply 
 within that sphere. Hence the important point on the 
 whole is not to know what the rules of action are, but 
 rather the type of character that is to be developed in 
 us. A well-developed character, placed in a given sit- 
 uation, will soon discover rules for itself. 3 Thus, we 
 
 (Ethical Studies, Essay V.). Cf. Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, Part II. : 
 "The moral endeavour of man takes the form not of isolated fancies 
 about right and wrong, not of attempts to frame a morality for him- 
 self, not of efforts to bring into being some praiseworthy ideal never 
 realized ; but the form of sustaining and furthering the moral world 
 of which he is a member. 1 ' Thus we agree, after all, with the view 
 of Dr. Johnson, that a good action is one that " is driving on the 
 system of life." But for this view we now have a rational justifi- 
 cation. 
 
 l Cf. Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, p. 47: "An artisan or an 
 artist or a writer who does not ' do his best ' is not only an inferior 
 workman but a bad man." Mr. Muirhead quotes Carlyle's saying 
 about a bad joiner, that he "broke the whole decalogue with every 
 stroke of his hammer." See also Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, p. 112 : 
 "The good artisan 'has his heart in his work.' His self-respect makes 
 it necessary for him to respect his technical or artistic capacity ; and 
 to do the best by it that he can without scrimping or lowering." 
 
 * It may be worth while to note here that rules of conduct are, In 
 general, valuable for us in proportion as our interest in the concrete 
 matter concerned is small A man does not wa'nt rules for the per- 
 formance of anything which he has deeply at heart Thus, a serious 
 student has little need of rules for study. His own interest is a suf- 
 ficient guide. On the other hand, a man whose main work does not 
 lie in study, but who is able to devote a few hours to it now and then, 
 may find it advantageous to have definite rules for the perform- 
 ance of the uncongenial task. So it is in life generally. Christian, 
 ity abolished the external rules of Judaism, by enjoining upon us an
 
 348 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. in. 
 
 are naturally led from the consideration of the com- 
 mandments to the consideration of the virtues. 1 
 
 interest in life instead. Such an interest is the only safe final guide, 
 But so long as such an interest cannot be pre-supposed, particular 
 rules retain a certain relative value. Some very suggestive remarks 
 on this point will be found in Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Senti- 
 ments, Part III., sect IV. He there gives some interesting examples 
 of actions which are naturally done in obedience to rule, because our 
 interest in them is slight ; and of others which are naturally done 
 rather from an interest in the object to be attained. 
 
 1 Prof. Dewey says (Outlines of Ethics, p. 231) : " It is a common 
 remark that moral codes change from ' Do not ' to ' Do,' and from this 
 to ' Be.' A Mosaic code may attempt to regulate the specific acts of 
 life. Christianity says, ' Be ye perfect' The effort to exhaust the 
 various special right acts is futile. They are not the same for any 
 two men, and they change constantly with the same man. The ver 
 words which denote virtues come less and less to mean specific act? 
 and more the spirit in which conduct occurs." Cf. Muirhead'* El* 
 ments of Ethics, p.. 71, note.
 
 THE DUTIES. 349 
 
 NOTE ON RULES OF CONDUCT. 
 
 I have no doubt that some readers will be a good deal disappointed 
 by the results of this chapter. Many of those who take up the 
 study of Ethics expect to find in it some cut-and-dried formulas for 
 the guidance of their daily lives. They expect the ethical philoso- 
 pher to explain to them, as I once heard it put, what they ought to 
 get up and do to-morrow morning. And no doubt it is true enough 
 in a sense that the ethical philosopher, if he is good for anything, 
 will explain this. He will explain to them the spirit in which they 
 ought to apply themselves to the particular situation before them 
 to-morrow morning. But most people, and especially most English 
 people, are not content with this. The cause of this discontent is no 
 doubt partly that most of us have become accustomed in our youth 
 to a code of Ten Commandments, generally accompanied by cer- 
 tain subordinate rules deduced from them. Partly, again, it is that 
 most of the English schools of Ethics have connected themselves 
 closely with Jurisprudence, 1 and have thus given encouragement to 
 the notion that a set of moral laws might be devised similar to the 
 laws of a nation. Now I admit of course that it is possible to draw 
 out certain rules of conduct, founded on the general nature of human 
 life and the conditions under which it has to be carried on ; and it 
 is part of the task of the moral philosopher to explain the general 
 nature of these rules, and to show their place in the conduct of life. 
 This I have endeavoured to do. But to suppose that Ethics is called 
 upon to do more than this appears to me to be a most fatal error. 
 Happily life cannot yet be reduced to rule. A moral genius must 
 always, like Mirabeau, "swallow his formulas" and start afresh. 
 Pedantry will not carry one far in life, 3 any more than in literature. 
 
 At the same time, while emphasizing this point, I have certainly 
 no wish to rush to the opposite extreme. There has been so strong 
 a tendency in former times to lay down an absolute " ought " in 
 
 1 The chaotic state of English law led men like Bentham to seek 
 for a rational basis of Jurisprudence in ethical principles. This ap- 
 plication of Ethics has reacted on the study of Ethics itself. On the 
 Continent the prevalence of Roman Law has perhaps made the 
 demand for a fresh ethical basis less urgent 
 
 * There are some good remarks on this point in Adlcr's Moral 
 Instruction of Children, pp. 19-33.
 
 350 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. in. 
 
 Ethics, with a rigid scheme of obligations hanging from it, that now, 
 by a not unnatural reaction, we find a number of our ethical writers 
 treading very gingerly, hesitating to say that there is any such thing 
 as duty, apologizing for the use of the word " ought," and mildly 
 conceding that Ethics is of no practical value. This extreme appears 
 to me to be quite as pernicious as the other. It is the function of the 
 ethical philosopher to discover and define the supreme end of life. 
 This is what all the great ethical writers have done, from Plato and 
 Aristotle to Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Green. As soon as this end is 
 clearly seen, the duty of pursuing it becomes an absolute imperative, 
 from which there is no escape. And with this end in view, the 
 whole of our life falls into shape. Hence, as Aristotle puts it,* " from 
 a practical point of view it much concerns us to know this good ; 
 for then, like archers shooting at a definite mark, we shall be more 
 likely to attain what we want* Undoubtedly, in this sense, Ethics 
 is of the greatest practical value. Nor is its value in any way dimin- 
 ished by the fact that the moral genius, or even the man of ordi- 
 nary good sense, may act well without any knowledge of Ethics 
 The human end is involved in man's very existence. No one can 
 exist at all without being in some degree conscious of it The task 
 of the moral philosopher is only that of bringing it to clear con- 
 sciousness. Only that ! In the same way, the task of the poet is only 
 that of making clear to us the beauty that is everywhere around us. 
 The task of the metaphysician is only that of bringing out the mean- 
 ing and connection of the principles made use of in the sciences. 
 This " only " is a little out of place. 
 
 While we must insist, then, that it is not the task of Ethics to furnish 
 us with copy-book headings for the guidance of life, we must equally 
 insist that it is its task to furnish us with practical principles to 
 bring the nature of the highest good to clear consciousness, and to 
 indicate the general nature of the means by which this good is 
 to be attained. It thus tells us, not indeed the particular rules by 
 which our lives are to be guided, but what is of infinitely greater 
 practical importance the spirit in which our lives are to be lived. 
 
 I am well aware that all this will seem unsatisfactory to many 
 minds. The military spirit is deeply rooted in human nature. Men 
 are eager to catch the word of command, and are disappointed when 
 they are only told, as by Jesus, to " love one another," or, as by 
 Hegel, to " be persons," or, as in the vision of Dante, to " follow their 
 star." And, indeed, as I have already said, Ethics does supply some- 
 
 i Ethics, Lii. a.
 
 THE DUTIES. 35 I 
 
 thing more than this. It does interpret for us the meaning and im- 
 portance of some more special rules. But assuredly neither Ethics 
 nor anything else will tell a man what in particular he is to do. 
 There would be an end of the whole significance of life if any such 
 information were to be had. All action that is of much consequence 
 has reference to concrete situations, which could not possibly be 
 exhausted by any abstracthnethods of analysis. It is the special busi- 
 ness of every human being to find out for himself what he is to do, 
 and to do it Ethics only instructs him where to look for it, and 
 helps him to see why it is worth while to find it and to do it Like 
 all sciences, it leaves its principles in the end to be applied by the 
 instructed good sense of mankind. 1 
 
 1 It may perhaps appear that this point has been somewhat over- 
 emphasized ; but I think there is a real danger of misconception 
 here, and I have been anxious to guard against it On the general 
 question involved, it maybe well to refer, in addition to the authori- 
 ties already cited, to Mill's System of Logic, Book VI., chap. xiL, 
 Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics, Book IV., chaps, iv. and v., Green's 
 Prolegomena to Ethics, Book IV., Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Intro- 
 duction, Bosanquet's Civilization of Christendom, p. idosqq., and the 
 article by Mr. Muirhead on " Abstract and Practical Ethics " in the 
 American Journal of Sociology for November, 18961
 
 352 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. IV 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE VIRTUES. 
 
 1. RELATION OF THE VIRTUES TO THE COMMANDMENTS. 
 When we have ascertained what are the most important 
 commandments, we have at the same time discovered 
 to a considerable extent what are the most important 
 virtues. The virtuous man will be on the whole the 
 man who has a steadfast habit of obeying the com- 
 mandments. There are, however, many virtuous hab- 
 its which do not correspond to any commandments 
 that can be definitely formulated.* Moreover, as the 
 virtues are concerned mainly with inner habits of mind, 
 whereas the commandments deal with overt acts,s the 
 
 1 Virtue (from Latin vir, a man or hero) meant originally man- 
 iiness or valour. The Greek open} (from the same root as Ares, the 
 god of war) and the German Tugend (connected with our English 
 word "doughty") have a somewhat similar origin. The term is 
 here employed to denote a good habit of character, as distinguished 
 from a Duty, which denotes rather some particular kind of action 
 that we ought to perform. Thus a man does his Duty ; but he pos- 
 sesses a Virtue, or is virtuous. Another sense in which the term 
 " Virtue * is used, has been already noticed above (chap, iii., 12). 
 
 * Mr. Alexander (Moral Order and Progress, p. 253) definitely con- 
 nects the virtues, as well as the duties, with social institutions. In 
 both cases there seems to be some exaggeration in this. Cf. Muir- 
 head's Elements of Ethics, p. 188. 
 
 ' The Jewish commandments, as interpreted in the Sermon on 
 the Mount, and by modern Christian thought, are of course concerned 
 with the heart as well as with outer acts. Also the summary of the 
 commandments in terms of love refers entirely to an inner habit of 
 mind. But when the commandments are thus summed up, they
 
 2.] THE VIRTUES. 353 
 
 lines of cleavage in dealing with the virtues are natu- 
 rally somewhat different from those that we find in 
 dealing with the commandments. Hence it seems 
 desirable to devote a separate chapter to the subject of 
 the virtues. 
 
 2. VIRTUES RELATIVE TO STATES OF SOCIETY. The 
 virtues which it is desirable for human beings to culti- 
 vate vary considerably with different times and places. 
 They are more variable even than the commandments * ; 
 because the latter confine themselves to those broad 
 principles of conduct which are applicable to nearly 
 all the conceivable conditions of life. At the same 
 time, even the virtues are less changeable than they 
 are apt at first sight to appear. The Greek virtue of 
 courage, confined almost entirely to valour in battle, 
 has but little correspondence to anything that is su- 
 premely important in modern life. Yet the temper of 
 mind which it indicates is one for which there is as 
 much demand now as ever.* And so it is also with 
 most of the other virtues. The precise conditions of 
 their exercise change ; but the habit of mind remains 
 intrinsically the same. Still, even the habit of mind 
 does undergo some alteration. The kind of fortitude 
 which is required for valour in battle is, even in its 
 most inward aspect, somewhat different from that 
 
 cease to be particular rules. Particular rules relate to particular 
 modes of action. Cf. Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, p. 70. For a 
 discussion of the relation of Virtue to Duty, see Sidgwick's Methods 
 vf Ethics, Book III., chap. ii. The following chapters of the same 
 book contain interesting analyses of most of the particular virtues. 
 Cf. Rickaby's Moral Philosophy, Part I., chap. v. 
 
 * In that broad sense in which alone, as we have seen, universally 
 ignificant commandments can be laid down. 
 
 * See Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, Book III., chap. v. 
 
 Eth. at
 
 354 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. iv. 
 
 fortitude which sustains the modern man of science, 
 politician, scholar, or philanthropist Hence this side 
 of ethical study is one which each generation of writers 
 requires almost to reconsider for itself. However in- 
 structive the great work of Aristotle may still remain 
 on this point (and there is perhaps nothing more in- 
 structive in the whole range of ethical literature), it is 
 yet not quite directly applicable to the conditions of 
 modern life. In order to understand what are the most 
 important virtues for us to cultivate in modern times, 
 it is necessary to consider them in relation to the 
 structure and requirements of modern society. 
 
 3. THE ETHOS OF A PEOPLE. It is for this reason 
 that it is so important, from an ethical point of view, 
 to study carefully what the Germans call the Sitten 
 (the moral habitudes of thought and action) of differ- 
 ent times and peoples. We have no English word 
 that quite expresses this idea ; but, instead of having 
 recourse to the German, we may use a Greek term, and 
 speak of the ethos of a people.* The ethos of a people 
 is partly constituted by definite rules or precepts. The 
 Ten Commandments formed a very important element 
 in the ethos of the Jews ; and they have continued, 
 
 1 The English word " Manners " used to have a meaning closely 
 approximating to this, but it has deteriorated. See International 
 Journal of Ethics, VoL VII., no. L 
 
 * Cj. Bradley's Ethical Studies, chap, v., especially p. igb, where 
 the following is quoted from Hegel : "The child, in his character of 
 the form of the possibility of a moral individual, is something sub- 
 jective or negative ; his growing to manhood is the ceasing to be of 
 this form, and his education is the discipline or the compulsion 
 thereof. The positive side and the essence is that he is suckled at 
 the breast of the universal Ethos" Similarly on p, 169.! "The wisest 
 men of antiquity have given judgment that wisdom and virtue con- 
 list in living agreeably to the Ethoe of one's people.*
 
 3] THE VIRTUES. 355 
 
 with certain modifications and enlargements, to form 
 an important element in the ethos of modern European 
 peoples. The precepts contained in the Sermon on 
 the Mount have perhaps never been sufficiently appro- 
 priated by the world in general to be made definitely 
 into a part of the ethos of any people ; but they have 
 undoubtedly exercised a most profound influence on 
 the ethos of nearly all civilized nations. The ethos of 
 a people, then, is partly expressed in definite com- 
 mands and precepts. But partly also it consists in re- 
 cognized habits of action and standards of judgment 
 which have never been precisely formulated. Thus, 
 in England there is a general idea of the kind of con- 
 duct which is fitting in a " gentleman " ; and though it 
 might be difficult to reduce this standard to the form of 
 definite rules, yet it has undoubtedly exercised a great 
 influence in forming the ethos of our people. 
 
 The ethos of a people, then, we may say, constitutes 
 the atmosphere in which the best members of a race 
 habitually live ; or, in language that we have previously 
 employed, it constitutes the universe of their moral 
 activities. It is the morality of our world ; and on the 
 whole the man who conforms to the morality of that 
 world is a good man, and the man who violates it is a 
 bad man. Mr. Bradley has even said emphatically ' 
 
 l Ethical Studies, p. i8a So also on p. 181 he says : " We should 
 consider whether the encouraging oneself in having opinions of 
 one's own, in the sense of thinking differently from the world on 
 moral subjects, be not. In any person other than a heaven-born 
 prophet, sheer self-conceit" There is, however, some paradox in 
 this. A man may be a moral reformer in a small way, without 
 being exactly a " heaven-born prophet" The suffering or witness- 
 tag of wrong in some particular form, for instance, often makes a 
 urn sensitive to an evil to which most men are callous. Alao tba
 
 356 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. IV. 
 
 that the man who seeks to have a higher morality than 
 that of his world is on the threshold of immorality. 
 But this is an exaggeration. For the ethos of a people 
 is not a stationary thing. 1 It develops, like social life 
 generally ; and its development is brought about mainly 
 by the constant effort of the best members of a race 
 to reach a higher standard of life than that which they 
 find current around them. The xaX.oxdra.06? of the 
 Greeks might occasionally permit himself to do many 
 things, and to abstain from doing many things, which 
 would scarcely be thought becoming in a modern 
 "gentleman"; while the teachings of Christianity 
 hold up to us an ideal of life which has not yet been 
 fully embodied in the current morality of the world. 
 While, then, it is on the whole true that the ethos of 
 our people furnishes us with our moral standard, it 
 must yet be remembered that it is often desirable to 
 elevate that standard itself.* 
 
 disciples of the * heaven-born prophets " will for a time hold opinions 
 different from those of the world But what Mr. Bradley means is 
 simply, Try to be as good as your world first : after that you may 
 seek to make it better. His meaning is similar to that of Burke 
 (Reflections on the Revolution in France) : * We are afraid to put men 
 to Hve and trade each on his own private stock of reason ; because 
 we suspect that the stock in each man is small, and that the indi- 
 viduals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and 
 capital of nations and of ages." 
 
 1 Sometimes, indeed, it is a highly artificial thing, brought into 
 being by the accidental circumstances of a particular time and place. 
 Thus Adam Smith remarks (Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part V, 
 sect II.) that "in the reign of Charles II. a degree of licentiousness 
 was deemed the characteristic of a liberal education. It was con- 
 nected, according to the notions of those times, with generosity, 
 incerity, magnanimity, loyally, and proved that the person wha 
 cted in this manner was a gentleman, and not a puritan." 
 
 Cy. below, chap, vii
 
 4-] THE VIRTUES. 357 
 
 Now the virtues that are current among a people at 
 a given time are the expression in particular forms of 
 the ethos of that people ; and their significance can be 
 appreciated only in relation to the general life of the 
 times. 
 
 4. VIRTUES RELATIVE TO THE SOCIAL FUNCTIONS. Not 
 only, however, are the virtues relative to different 
 times and different social conditions : they are also 
 relative to the functions that different individuals have 
 to fulfil in society. Here again it is true that the 
 differences are not so great as one is apt to think 
 We are apt to say that a poor man cannot exercise the 
 virtue of liberality ; and that a man who is rich and 
 prosperous has little need for the virtue of patience. 
 This is to a large extent true ; yet the habit of mind 
 which with a rich man leads to liberality may equally 
 well be present, and is equally admirable, in one who 
 is poor. And the same applies to other qualities. 
 Still, it remains on the whole true that the virtues 
 which we respect and admire in a man are not quite 
 the same as those of a woman.; that those of the rich 
 are not quite the same as those of the poor ; those of 
 an old man not quite the same as those of a young 
 man ; those of a parent not quite the same as those of 
 a child ; those of a man in health not quite the same 
 as those of one who is sick ; those of a commercial 
 man not quite the same as those of a man of science ; 
 and so in other cases. In describing the virtues, there- 
 fore, we must either go somewhat minutely into the 
 consideration of different circumstances of life, and of 
 the qualities that are most desirable under these vary- 
 ing conditions ; or else we must confine ourselves to 
 statements that are very general and vague. The
 
 358 ETHICS* [BK. III., CH. IV. 
 
 limits of space and the difficulties of the subject both 
 lead us to adopt the latter alternative. 
 
 5. THE NATURE OF VIRTUE. The virtues, as waa 
 admirably pointed out by Aristotle, are habits of deli- 
 berate choice. To be virtuous means to have a char- 
 acter so developed that we habitually choose to act in 
 the right way. Now as the right action nearly always 
 stands between two possible bad actions one erring 
 by excess and the other by defect Aristotle con- 
 sidered f that virtue consists essentially in a habit oj 
 choosing the mean. He well added, however, that ik 
 is the choice of the relative mean f. e. of the particular 
 Intermediate course which is appropriate to the par- 
 ticular individual in question, and to the particular 
 circumstances in which he is placed. That mean 
 must be determined in each case by a consideration of 
 its conduciveness to the general development of social 
 life. To hit upon it rightly is often a problem for in- 
 dividual tact and insight ; but a study of the greatest 
 examples in human history is in many cases a valuable 
 aid in deciding on the most fitting conduct in a given 
 case. 
 
 6. THE CARDINAL VIRTUES. From the earlitst pe- 
 riods of ethical speculation, attempts have been made 
 to enumerate the various forms of virtues. The most 
 celebrated of these lists are those given by Plato and 
 Aristotle. The former seems to have been current 
 among Greek moralists even before the time of Plato. 
 It has at least the merit of simplicity, containing only 
 four cardinal* virtues Wisdom (or Prudence), Courage 
 
 Ethics, Book II., chaps, vi ix. Cf. Sidgwick's History of Ethics, 
 
 P. & 
 From cardo, a hinge. The Cardinal Virtues are suppotedto b
 
 6.] THE VIRTUES. 359 
 
 (or Fortitude), Temperance (or Self-Restraint), and 
 Justice (or Righteousness). This classification, how- 
 ever, simple as it appears, was soon found to give risa 
 to considerable difficulties. It began to be perceived, 
 for instance, that in a certain sense the first of the 
 virtues includes all the others ; for every virtuous 
 activity consists in acting wisely in some particular 
 relationship. Again, Justice (or Righteousness) seems 
 to be made somewhat too comprehensive in its mean- 
 ing when it is used to include (as, on this acceptation, 
 it must) all the social virtues. Perceiving these and 
 other defects in the catalogue of the virtues, Aristotle 
 was led to a considerable expansion of the list. 1 But 
 his expansion had so constant a reference to the virtues 
 that were expected of an Athenian citizen that its direct 
 interest for modern life is comparatively slight And 
 it would perhaps be somewhat futile to attempt to 
 draw up any similar catalogue specially adapted for 
 
 those on which the others hinge or depend Cj. the Cardinals in 
 the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 1 It might be held, however, that Plato and Aristotle were in 
 reality engaged on distinct problems. Plato sought to give an ac- 
 count of the Cardinal Virtues i. e. the general elements Involved 
 in all virtuous activities ; whereas Aristotle sought to give a list of 
 special virtues, exhibited not in all virtuous activities, but in parti- 
 cular kinds of virtuous activity. But this view seems to me to be 
 scarcely tenable. The distinction here referred to is clearly drawn 
 by Prof. Dewey in his Outlines of Ethics, p. 230. I am doubtful, 
 however, whether his interpretation of the term " cardinal virtue " 
 is sanctioned by the best usage. He means those general charac- 
 teristics of a virtuous attitude, such as purity of heart, disinterested- 
 ness, conscientiousness, and the like, which belong to the very 
 essence of virtue as such. The relation of such qualities of the 
 "Inner life" to the virtues proper is partly dealt with in the next 
 chapter. For the origin of the phrase "cardinal virtue, 'see Sidg- 
 wick's History of Ethics, p, 133. C/. Rickaby's Moral Philosophy, p. 84
 
 3 6o ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. rv. 
 
 modern times, with their complicated problems and 
 varied relationships. 1 Nevertheless, a few suggestions 
 towards such a catalogue may be found useful. 
 
 We may note, to begin with, the distinction which 
 is commonly drawn between self-regarding virtues 
 and those that are altruistic, or have reference to the 
 good of others. This distinction is apt to be mislead- 
 ing. The individual has no life of his own independ- 
 ent of his social relations ; and any virtue which has 
 reference to the good of the individual, must have 
 reference also to social well-being. This fact, how- 
 ever, need not prevent us from distinguishing between 
 the life of an individual and the wider world to which 
 it is related ; and some virtues may be said to bear 
 specially on the former, while others bear more par- 
 ticularly on the latter. It may be convenient to loot 
 at these two classes of virtues separately. 
 
 (a) Taking the four Platonic virtues as a convenient 
 starting-point, it is evident that courage and temper- 
 ance are the two that bear specially* on the life of the 
 individual. If we understand courage (or fortitude) in 
 the wide sense of resistance to the fear of pain, and 
 temperance in the equally wide sense of resistance 
 to the allurements of pleasure, these two virtues will 
 include all forms of opposition to temptation in the 
 individual life. Temptation appears either in the form 
 of some pain to be avoided or some pleasure to be 
 
 1 An interesting list has been drawn up, in the form of a table, by 
 Mr. Muirhead, in his Elements of Ethics, p. 201. Some suggestive 
 remarks on the particular virtues required in modern life will be 
 found in Adler's Moral Instruction of Children, Lectures XI. XV 
 
 * Wisdom, as we shall see immediately, is also directly concerned 
 in the guidance of the individual life. But it applies equally to our 
 social relationships,
 
 6.] THE VIRTUES. 361 
 
 secured ; and he who is proof against these will lead a 
 steadfast life along the lines that he has chosen. It is 
 evident, however, that a man may be courageous and 
 temperate in the conduct of his life, and yet be living 
 foolishly. A wise choice of the line to be pursued is a 
 necessary preliminary. If we understand the Platonic 
 virtue of wisdom (or prudence) in this sense, we shall 
 have in a manner a complete list of the virtues required 
 for the conduct of the individual life. But it is evident 
 that each of these virtues must be understood in such 
 a sense as to comprehend under it a great variety of 
 qualities not always found together in the same indi- 
 vidual. Thus wisdom would require to be understood 
 as including care, foresight, prudence, and also a cer- 
 tain decisiveness of choice. Courage, again, would 
 include both valour and fortitude, /. e. both the active 
 courage which pursues its course in spite of the pro- 
 bability of pain, and the passive courage which bears 
 inevitable suffering without flinching. * But these are 
 not the same virtues, and are indeed perhaps not 
 often found together in any high degree. Again, 
 courage would have to be understood as including 
 perseverance ; and this seems a somewhat unnatural 
 extension of its meaning ; just as it is somewhat un- 
 
 1 Mrs. Bryant (Educational Ends, pp. 71-2) regards fortitude as a 
 higher virtue than the more active courage which goes to meet 
 danger ; because the former bears actual pain, the latter only the 
 fear of pain. This is so far true. Courage is a blinder virtue than 
 fortitude. The courageous man sets pain aside and forgets it 
 whereas the man who shows fortitude is one who endures an ac- 
 tually present pain which cannot be set aside. But on the other 
 hand courage is a more active and voluntary virtue than fortitude. 
 It not merely endures pain, but goes to meet it in the fulfilment of 
 a purpose. In this respect courage seems to be the higher virtue of 
 the two.
 
 362 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. iv. 
 
 natural to include decision under wisdom. Perhaps 
 the qualities of decision, diligence, and perseverance 
 would come most naturally under a separate heading 
 by themselves. These qualities are concerned not so 
 much with the resistance to the solicitations of plea- 
 sure and pain, as with the resistance to the natural 
 inertia of human nature. The Christian virtues of 
 faith and hope are closely connected with valour and 
 fortitude, in so far as they supply the latter vir*ues 
 with an inner ground. A confident and cheerful view 
 of life seems to be presupposed in the highest forms of 
 courage. 1 With reference to temperance, again, this 
 virtue would require to be understood as including 
 the resistance to all kinds of solicitation from pleasures, 
 whether sensual or intellectual, in so far as these tend 
 to interfere with the conduct of life along the lines that 
 have been chosen. Broadly speaking, then, we should 
 be led in this way to recognize four distinct classes ol 
 virtues as bearing directly on the conduct of the indi- 
 vidual life wisdom in the choice of its general course, 
 decisiveness in pursuing it, courage and temperance in 
 resisting the solicitations of pain and pleasure.' 
 
 i Browning's portraiture of Hercules in Balaustion's Adventuri 
 well illustrates the qualities involved in the highest forms of active 
 courage. 
 
 3 Mr. Muirhead remarks (Elements of Ethics, p. 198-9) that the vir- 
 tues of courage and temperance involve one another. " In order to 
 be temperate a man must be courageous : in order to be able to 
 resist the allurements of pleasure he must be willing to endure the 
 pain that resistance involves. Similarly, in order to be courageous, 
 he must be temperate." But this is perhaps a needless subtlety. 
 The man who temperately abstains from a bottle of wine must no 
 doubt be courageous enough to face the difficulties and dangers in- 
 volved in going without it But does not this mean simply that 
 temperance is a kind of negative courage ? And does not the dis- 
 tinction between positive and negative still remain ?
 
 6.] THE VIRTUES. 363 
 
 (b) The virtues that relate to the individual's deal- 
 ings with his fellow-men are perhaps best summed up 
 under the head of justice. At the same time, this 
 term, as commonly understood, is much too narrow 
 to include all the virtues that arise in such relation- 
 ships. It must be understood, for instance, to include 
 not merely the fulfilment of contracts, and the perform- 
 ance of every duty required by the laws, express or 
 understood, of the community to which one belongs, 
 but also perfect honesty and fidelity in all one's rela- 
 tionships with others. Mr. Ruskin has taught us to 
 look for honesty even in modes of artistic expression ; 
 and this kind of honesty, as well as others, 1 must be 
 included in our idea of justice, if that idea is to be 
 made to comprehend all the virtues connected with 
 our social obligations. Further, the Christian ideal of 
 life has taught us to expect something beyond the mere 
 satisfaction of obligations in our dealings with our 
 fellow-men ; and indeed more than this was expected 
 even by the moral consciousness of the Greeks. We 
 commonly say that generosity is expected as well as 
 justice ; and in Christian communities love also is re- 
 quired. In a sense, however, we may say that all this 
 ought to be included in our idea of justice. 2 For it is 
 part of what is due from one individual to another that 
 
 1 Other instances of honesty, going beyond mere truthfulness, 
 might easily be given. Thus the student who " crams " for an ex- 
 animation may be said to be dishonest, because his knowledge is 
 not genuine. Again, what Mr. Bosanquet calls (History of ^Esthetic, 
 p. xiii) " the scholar's golden rule never to quote from a book that 
 he has not read from cover to cover," is a good instance of the ex- 
 tension of the idea of honesty. 
 
 a Thus, generosity, as Mr. Muirhead says, " is only justice ade- 
 quately conceived " (Elements of Ethics, p. 200).
 
 364 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. iv. 
 
 the latter should be treated not as a mere thing to which 
 certain specifiable obligations are owed, but as a person, 
 an absolute end, with infinite claims. It is true that as 
 a general rule such ideal relationships are only partly 
 attainable ; but the thoroughly just man will endeavour 
 to realize them as far as possible, and will be glad 
 when the external relationships of mere contract can 
 be transmuted into the relationships of friendship or 
 Christian love. 1 Hence also such ideas as those of 
 courtesy, and even of a certain cheerfulness and good 
 humour in social intercourse ; such efforts as that of 
 being, as far as possible, all things to all men, of avoid- 
 ing all appearance of evil, of abstaining from that 
 which is lawful when it is not expedient, and in general 
 all the chivalries of the Christian gentleman, are not 
 foreign to the conception of justice. They are part of 
 what we owe to one another as persons and as abso- 
 lute ends. 
 
 We see, then, that, by giving a broad interpretation 
 to each of the terms used, we may accept the old 
 Greek classification of the virtues with but slight modi- 
 fications. The only positive addition that we have to 
 make is the recognition of a virtue of decisiveness and 
 perseverance. Perhaps it was natural that the Greeks 
 should omit this, partly because their plan of life was 
 more mapped out for them beforehand than it is with 
 us, and partly because with their simpler method of 
 life steady persistence in any particular line was less 
 essential. Perhaps also the light inconstancy of the 
 
 1 Here we are in agreement with Carlyle. Cf. above, chap, ii., 7 
 We doubt only whether the abolition of contract would of itself 
 produce this desirable result Justice must on the whole precede 
 generosity.
 
 6.] THE VIRTUES. 365 
 
 Athenian character, its perennial youthfulness, made 
 the omission of this stern virtue easy. A Roman 
 would scarcely have forgotten the idea of disciplined 
 application ; ' an Englishman would not naturally omit 
 decision of character : a German would remember 
 Daurbarkeit* Besides this, however, it must not be 
 forgotten that we have been extending the meaning 
 of the four Greek virtues to senses which the Greeks 
 themselves would not have acknowledged. 3 But such 
 an expansion of the conception of duty is inevitable as 
 the world advances. 
 
 Having made this classification, however, we may 
 at once add that any attempt to draw out such a 
 list, like an attempt to make a list of the command- 
 ments, is of very slight importance. There is essen- 
 tially but one virtue (what we may, if we like, call 
 practical wisdom*), just as there is essentially but one 
 commandment. The particular virtues, like the par- 
 ticular commandments, are only special forms in which 
 
 l The decisiveness of such a man as Caesar, for instance (cf. below, 
 chap, v., n. note), seems to be a virtue which cannot be identified 
 either with wisdom, courage, or temperance. 
 
 a Persistence. Cf. also the peculiarly German virtue of Treue 
 (fidelity). These virtues were all somewhat foreign to the Athenian 
 character. 
 
 * This was habitually done by the early Christian moralists who 
 accepted the Platonic classification. See Sidgwick's History of Ethics, 
 
 P- 133- 
 
 4 It might be urged, of course, that there is a great difference be- 
 tween what Bacon calls " wisdom fora man's self " and that wisdom 
 which manifests itself in a just regard for others. But wisdom for 
 a man's self, in the sense of mere selfish prudence, is not virtue at 
 all Wise care of a man's own interests, in the sense in which that 
 is a virtue, is precisely the same quality as that which leads, when 
 extended, to a wise care of the interests of others. The only dif- 
 ference lies in the extension of our universe.
 
 366 ETHICS. [BK. ni., CH. iv. 
 
 the right attitude of mind manifests itself. The effort 
 to make a last of these forms is almost frivolous. I 
 have thought it worth while to say so much as I have 
 done on the subject, only in order to make it clear 
 what such an effort would mean. Perhaps the best 
 way of regarding the virtues is to treat them as those 
 forms of character that are implied in the fulfilment of 
 the duties or commandments ; while those duties or 
 commandments, again, depend on the elements in- 
 volved in the social unity. 
 
 7. EDUCATION OF CHARACTER. Having ascertained 
 what are the types of character to which we wish to 
 approximate, we have next to inquire into the means 
 by which these types are to be developed. Here, how- 
 ever, it would be necessary to trespass on the province 
 of Psychology, and especially on that part of Psycho- 
 logy which is concerned with the theory of Education. 
 This subject is still in a somewhat undeveloped state ; * 
 and there are only one or two remarks that seem to 
 have any practical value for our present purpose. It is 
 scarcely necessary to refer to what every moralist has 
 noticed, the influence of example in the development 
 of character. "As iron sharpeneth steel, so a man 
 sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." But all the 
 forms of social relationship have a similar value. Per- 
 haps we may say generally that the important thing, 
 
 1 Reference, may, however, be made to Herbart's Science of Educa- 
 tion. Some good points will be found also in Guyau's Education 
 and Heredity, Fouillee's L'Enseignenient au Point de Vue National, 
 Mrs. Bryant's Educational Ends, Rosenkranz's Philosophy of Educa- 
 tion, and Dr. Adler*s Moral Instruction of Children. Herbart's chief 
 point is that the great work of education is to extend the " circle of 
 thought" By a " circle of thought " he means very nearly what baa 
 been described in this handbook as a "universe.*
 
 7.] THE VIRTUES. 367 
 
 from this point of view, is the influence that comes 
 from connecting oneself with some organization that 
 has a certain completeness in itself. Schiller said that 
 a man must either be a whole in himself or else join him- 
 self on to a whole. To this Mr. Bradley has added, 1 
 "You cannot be a whole, unless you join a whole." 
 Complete development of character can be attained only 
 by devoting ourselves to some large end, in co-operation 
 with others. Such an attachment comes to different 
 men in different ways. Some find it in the pursuit of 
 science, others in particular practical interests, others in 
 the political life of the State, others in poetry or religion. 
 It matters little what the form may be ; but unless a 
 man has, in some form, a broad human interest which 
 lifts him out of himself, his life remains a fragment, 
 and the virtues have no soil to grow in. The first 
 requisite, then, for the development of the virtues, is 
 to unite ourselves with others in the pursuit of some 
 end or ideal. In the second place, we may observe 
 that a certain amount of ascetic discipline is sometimes 
 found valuable. As Aristotle put it, a when a man's 
 character has been twisted in one direction, it may be 
 straightened by bending it in the other. Also, even 
 apart from this, a certain check to the gratification of 
 our natural propensities helps to waken up the will : 3 
 it prevents us from living on by rote, and thus serves 
 
 1 Ethical Studies, p. 72. Mr. Bradley attributes the saying to Goetha 
 It is one of the Xenien, and was probably of joint authorship. 
 
 2 Ethics, II. ix. 5. 
 
 8 Cf. James's Principles of Psychology, voL L, p. 126. Prof. James 
 lays down the maxim : " Keep the faculty of effort alive in you by a 
 little gratuitous exercise every day." He adds, " Be systematically 
 ascetic or heroic in little unnecessary points ; do every day or two 
 omething for no other reason than that you would rather not do it'
 
 368 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. iv, 
 
 as a stimulus to the development of character ; so that, 
 like Rabbi Ben Ezra, we may 
 
 " welcome each rebuff 
 That turns earth's smoothness rough, 
 Each sting that bids nor sit nor stand but go." 
 
 It is best, however, when such a rebuff comes to us in 
 the ordinary course of nature. When it is consciously 
 administered, it is apt to involve too much attention 
 to our own inner development, which almost always 
 leads to the production of a morbid habit of mind.' 
 On the whole, it is generally better to escape from our 
 defects, not by thinking about them and trying to 
 elude them, but by fixing our attention on the opposite 
 excellences. Dr. Chalmers used to speak of "the ex- 
 pulsive power of a new affection"; 3 and it certainly 
 seems a more effectual method as a rule to expel our 
 evil propensities by developing good ones rather than 
 by seeking directly to crush the evil ones. At the same 
 
 I venture to doubt the wisdom of this. A man who is living with 
 serious ends in view will, I think, always find sufficient occasions 
 for ascetic discipline 
 
 " Room to deny himself, a road 
 To bring him daily nearer God * 
 
 without artificially seeking them out (except perhaps in the way in- 
 dicated by Aristotle). See the whole passage from James quoted in 
 Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, p. 129, note. Cf. also Miss Gilliland's 
 Essay on " Pleasure and Pain in Education " in the International 
 Journal of Ethics, voL ii., No. 3 (April, 1892), pp. 303-4. 
 
 1 Cf. below, p. chap, v., n. 
 
 * So also Mrs. Humphry Ward says in Robert Elsmcrc : " This, 
 Indeed, is the only way in which opinion is ever really altered by 
 the substitution of one mental picture for another * ; and again : 
 * An idea cannot be killed from without it can only be supplanted, 
 transformed, by another idea, and that, one of equal virtue and 
 magic," These quotations are due to Mr. Welton.
 
 8.] THE VIRTUES. 369 
 
 time, it must be allowed that it is seldom possible to 
 develop the moral life, like a flower, by a simple pro- 
 cess of steady growth. Usually a certain amount of 
 attention to the inner life is necessary; and often a 
 man has to pass through crises, such as used to be 
 called, in religious language, conversion or new birth, 
 in which the attention is turned inwards, and the man 
 is occupied, as it were, in feeling his own pulse and 
 fingering the motives of his conduct. This is an 
 attitude from which we ought to escape as rapidly 
 as possible ; but it is so characteristic a feature in the 
 development of the moral life that it seems worth while 
 to devote a separate chapter to the consideration of it 
 the more so, as it will lead us to a further study of 
 what may be called the inner side of virtue. T 
 
 8. THE MORAL SYLLOGISM. Before we conclude this 
 chapter, it may be convenient to take note of a highly 
 significant conception of Aristotle, which seems here 
 in place. In the present and the two preceding 
 chapters we have briefly indicated the various forms 
 
 i With reference to moral education, it may be noted here that a 
 certain confusion is frequently fallen into between the culture of the 
 moral nature and the acquisition of knowledge about morals. The 
 former is all-important : the latter frequently leads to nothing more 
 than that form of spiritual pride which is vulgarly known as " prig- 
 gishness." In the former sense, all real education is moral education. 
 It is in this sense that Herbart says (Science of Education, p. 57), 
 " The one and the whole work of education may be summed up in 
 the concept Morality. ' 7.n the latter sense, on the other hand, a moral 
 education would generally be a bad education, leading to nothing 
 but self-conscious introspection. C/. the important distinction be- 
 tween "moral ideas" and "ideas about morality" drawn by Mr. 
 Bosanquet in his article on "The Communication of Moral Ideas' in 
 the International Journal of Ethics vol. I., No. i (Oct 1890), p. 86 
 See also Miss Gilliland, loc. cit, pp. 294-5 
 
 Eth. M
 
 ETHICS. LBK. III., CH. IV. 
 
 in which the moral atmosphere (if we may so call it) 
 affects the individual consciousness. The moral ideal 
 involved in social life presents itself to him in the three 
 forms of institutions to be maintained, duties to be 
 fulfilled, and a type of life to be realized. At different 
 stages of social development, and in different races of 
 mankind, it tends to present itself more distinctly in 
 one or other of these forms. Thus the Jews thought 
 chiefly of Commandments, the Greeks chiefly of 
 Virtues, and perhaps the Romans attached most im- 
 portance to the maintenance of social institutions. 
 But, in whatever form the moral life is conceived, the 
 good citizen may be said to derive from these general 
 conceptions of its nature the principles by which his 
 life is guided. It is then his business to apply these 
 principles in detail. This process was described by 
 Aristotle as the formation of a practical syllogism. 
 The major premiss consists of the general statement, 
 that a particular social institution is to be maintained, 
 that a particular commandment is to be obeyed, that 
 a particular type of life is to be realized. The minor 
 premiss consists in the apprehension that an action 
 of a particular kind would be one that fulfilled these 
 conditions. Then the conclusion would consist in the 
 carrying out of the action in question. 
 
 The power of thus apprehending the general prin- 
 ciple to be followed, and of bringing the particular 
 action under it, was called by Aristotle practical 
 wisdom (?>/><5vij<n?) ; and the man who possessed this 
 quality was called a ypovt^of (a wise or prudent man). 
 The excellence of the good citizen is of this nature ; 
 and, having reached this point, it may now be con- 
 yenient to give Aristotle's complete definition of Virtue
 
 8.] THE VIRTUES. 371 
 
 as it appears in the good citizen. Most of the points 
 in the definition have already come up in the course of 
 our exposition ; and it may be well now to have it 
 before us in its entirety. ' ' Virtue, " says Aristotle, ' " is 
 the habit of choosing the relative mean, as it is deter- 
 mined by reason, and as the man of practical wisdom 
 would determine it." This is apt to strike us at first 
 as defining in a circle ; but if we remember what is 
 meant by the man of practical wisdom viz. the man 
 who has fully entered into the spirit of his moral 
 environment ; and if we remember further that the 
 spirit of his moral environment is the product of the 
 human ideal t. e. of reason as it has so far expressed 
 itself; we may be able to see that it is not really 
 defining in a circle, but the expression of a profound 
 truth. It furnishes us, however, only with an account 
 of the virtue of the good citizen ; and though this is an 
 important element in the life of the good man, it is not 
 quite the whole of it. Accordingly, Aristotle proceeds 
 from the consideration of the virtue of the yf)6vttj.<>s to 
 the consideration of that of the ffopds (the man of 
 speculative wisdom), which he declares to be higher. 
 This raises the general question how far the highest 
 life of the individual can be regarded as something to 
 be realised apart from the life of the community, or as 
 something that contains elements that are not adequately 
 expressed in his relations to the social unity to which 
 he belongs. It is this question that we have now to 
 consider. 
 
 1 Nicomachean Ethics, II., vi. , 15. 'Eon* ipa. ^ apcrij fi irpoatprruc^ '* 
 ofio-a TTJ irpbs ^ias, upiyfjLtvji Aoyy <eai K an a
 
 372 ETHICS. [i K. III., CII. IV. 
 
 NOTE ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE VIRTUES. 
 
 Students who desire a more complete classification of the Virtues 
 than that which has been given in the foregoing chapter might find it 
 advantageous to study them genetically, i.e., to consider how they grow 
 up and come to be recognised in the development of human life. From 
 this point of view, it would probably be found that the earliest virtues 
 to be recognized are those of Courage and Loyalty, as being the most 
 important for the maintenance of the tribe. Courage at first means 
 Valour in battle, but gradually comes to include Fortitude, Hopeful- 
 ness, etc. In Aristotle's treatment of the virtue of Courage we see the 
 "beginnings of this process of expansion. Loyalty, in like manner, 
 means at first simple Fidelity to the tribal unity, but gradually comes 
 to include Perseverance and Enthusiasm in any work that may be 
 undertaken. As we go beyond the tribal consciousness, and pass to the 
 stage at which there is a more definite recognition of the individual 
 life, the virtues of Temperance and Prudence make their appearance, 
 and these also become by degrees more and more comprehensive. The 
 growth of the individual consciousness leads to the establishment of 
 personal relations between individuals ; and with these the virtues of 
 Fairness (Justice) and Friendliness soon acquire importance. The 
 deepening of the individual consciousness leads to the recognition of 
 the virtue of Reverence in its various forms of Self-Respect and 
 Respect for others. Finally, Wisdom comes to be seen as the Virtue 
 that underlies all others. From this point of view, then, the Cardinal 
 Virtues would be Courage, Loyalty, Temperance, Prudence, Fairness, 
 Friendliness, Reverence, and Wisdom. But from different points of 
 view different results might be reached. What is important is not 
 to have a classification of the virtues, but to understand the general 
 significance of Virtue as the habit of acting in a suitable way in 
 situations of a particular kind, and then to have a fairly complete view 
 of the kinds of situation that arise in communities at different stages of 
 development. Such a list of virtues as that given by Aristotle in the 
 Nicomachean Ethics cannot be regarded as much more than a collec- 
 tion of specimens of some of the most important types to be found 
 in his own age and country. The attempt to be exhaustive on such 
 a subject would be apt to lead to a result more voluminous than 
 luminous. On the other hand, if one tries to give simply a general 
 classification of the different directions in which the moral life becomes
 
 8.] THE VIRTUES. 3/3 
 
 specialised, such as is generally understood by a list of Cardinal Virtues, 
 it is almost impossible to devise any principle of division that is really 
 satisfactory. In Plato's fourfold list it is pretty clear that Wisdom is 
 on a different footing from the other three, being rather the underlying 
 principle of all than one of the special applications of it ; while again 
 Temperance and Justice cannot be very clearly distinguished from one 
 another. The common division of Virtues into the self-regarding and 
 the other-regarding is similarly unsatisfactory ; and so is Aristotle's 
 distinction of moral and intellectual virtues. On the whole, the genetic 
 order of study seems the most satisfactory.
 
 374 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. V. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE. 
 
 
 
 1. THE HIGHER INDIVIDUALISM. While it is true that 
 the life of the individual is relative throughout to the 
 social unity to which he belongs, it is none the less 
 true that it is in the personality of individuals that the 
 social unity is realized. Consequently, though it is an 
 error to think of an individual as having a life of his own 
 independent of society, it is not an error to think of the 
 individual life (realized within a social unity) as an 
 absolute and supreme end in itself. Hence the efforts 
 of such a man as Goethe after the highest culture of his 
 individual nature are not to be classed (as shallow 
 critics have sometimes classed them) with the strivings 
 of egoism. The development of such a personality is 
 at once a good in itself and a benefit to the whole of 
 humanity. Nor is this less true, though the benefit is 
 smaller, in the case of less comprehensive and signifi- 
 cant personalities. What Mr. Ruskin calls "the manu- 
 facture of souls " ' is the greatest of all industries. This 
 is a kind of work, however, in which men are apt to be 
 unsuccessful in proportion as they consciously set 
 themselves to it. Crescit occulto velut arbor oevo, is in 
 some measure true of most great characters. Even 
 Goethe seems to have been somewhat injured by his 
 
 1 C/. Walt Whitman's question, " Do they turn out men down your 
 way ?" quoted by Dr. Adler in his Moral Instruction of Children,
 
 2.] THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE. 37$ 
 
 too deliberate self-culture. "The unconscious," says 
 Carlyle, "is alone complete" ; the reason being that a 
 perfect character is one that is objective, that loses itself 
 in the world with which it deals, one that knows much 
 and loves much, not one that is much occupied in the 
 contemplation of itself. 1 Still, this objective point of 
 view is capable of being cultivated, and the cultivation 
 of it involves a certain amount of self-study. Some 
 points in c'onnection with this may now be noted. 
 
 2. CONVERSION. The religious experience known as 
 conversion seems to be a normal fact in our moral 
 development. Recurring to the mode of expression 
 which we have so frequently made use of, we may 
 say that this phenomenon occurs when a man is made 
 aware of a higher universe than that within which he 
 is living, and at the same time becomes conscious that 
 that higher universe is one within which he ought to 
 live. Such an experience occurs in its intensest form 
 only when the higher universe that is presented to us 
 is recognized as the highest of all i. e. it occurs mainly 
 in the religious life. But even apart from this, there is 
 frequently a crisis in the moral life, in which we pass 
 from some lower universe to a higher. The moment, 
 for instance, at which a man decides to devote himself 
 to poetry, or art, or science, or philosophy, or the time 
 
 i There is, in fact, what we may call a Paradox of Duty, analogous 
 to the Paradox of Pleasure referred to above (Book I., chap, il, 7). 
 Just as, in order to get pleasure, a man must interest himself rather in 
 particular objects than in his own personal feelings ; so, in order to 
 act rightly, a man must interest himself in some object that is to be 
 accomplished rather than in his own attitude in accomplishing it 
 Even the wealth of our inner life depends rather on the width of 
 our objective interests than on the intensity of our self-contempla- 
 tiou.
 
 3/6 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. v. 
 
 at which he hears of the death of a friend, or loses or 
 gains a fortune, or goes to college, or falls in love, will 
 often be such a period. Life takes on a new aspect; 
 and the mind turns in criticism upon the life that is 
 past. In the case of the religious life, there is often a 
 violent reaction against the past, a condemnation of 
 its acts and even of its ideals, repentance and remorse. 
 In less extreme cases there is only a certain shame for 
 the low level of our former existence, accompanied 
 frequently by contempt for those who remain at it, 
 together with a fixed determination to follow higher 
 things in the future. At such times a man is intensely 
 conscious of himself. He perhaps keeps a diary to 
 record his inner feelings. He withdraws probably in 
 some degree from general intercourse with the world, 
 and becomes somewhat cynical in his estimate of it. 1 
 He thinks he has discovered a new world which no one 
 has ever explored before him. It is at such times 
 especially that the inner life becomes prominent. 
 
 3. CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. Apart, however, from any 
 such special periods as this, one who is careful about 
 his moral conduct frequently finds himself called upon 
 to reflect upon his inner life, in the way of inquiry 
 whether his conduct conforms to his highest ideals. 
 Carlyle has commended* times of action in contrast 
 with times of reflection ; but in the practical moral life 
 it is impossible to keep the two long asunder. After 
 action we must reflect upon our activities and criticise 
 them, with a view to improving upon them in the 
 future. Now in so far as we merely consider our 
 overt acts, this involves no entrance into the inner 
 
 1 See Carlyle's Sartor Resartus, for instance. 
 1 Especially in his Essay on " Characteristics."
 
 3-] THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE. 377 
 
 life. But a man who is careful about his conduct will 
 generally reflect not merely upon his actual conduct, 
 but upon the motives by which he was led to it. 1 The 
 habit of reflecting upon them has been called by Green 
 conscientiousness. 2 It is doubtful whether this is a 
 quite correct use of that term. 3 Conscientiousness 
 seems properly to mean simply extreme care with 
 regard to our external conduct. But, for lack of a 
 better word, we may employ the term here in Green's 
 sense. "A man may ask himself," Green says, "Was 
 I, in doing so and so, acting as a good man should, 
 with a pure heart, with a will set on the objects on 
 which it should be set ? or again, Shall I, in doing so 
 and so, be acting as a good man should, goodness 
 being understood in the same sense ? " This question 
 is somewhat different from the question whether one's 
 action has in itself been right. It is rather the question 
 whether I, in doing an action in itself right, * was occu- 
 pying aright attitude, or whether I did it from a wrong 
 motive, s If a man is much occupied with such a 
 
 i As a rule, we do not do this. Although, as already remarked 
 (above, p. 135), the moral judgment is passed on a. person doing, not 
 on a thing done, yet the interest of the agent is normally centred in 
 \ thing to be done, not in himself as doing it Cf. also p. 355, note. 
 
 a Prolegomena to Ethics, pp. 260-271, and 323-327. 
 
 See Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, p. 202. 
 
 4 /. e. right as an overt act A man, in acting, is primarily interested 
 in the question, whether he is bringing about a desirable result In 
 judging his action, as we have already remarked (above, p. 135), we 
 take account of the motive by which he is led to bring about this 
 result But the man himself, in acting, does not normally think of 
 this. He simply sees the thing to be done and does it 
 
 8 I suspect that when men inquire into their motives in this way, 
 they are frequently using the term " motive " in the more inaccurate 
 sense formerly referred to (above, p. 62). They are thinking of the 
 feelings that accompany their actions rather than of the ends that
 
 378 ETHICS. [BK. m., CH. v. 
 
 question as this, it is generally a sign either of a 
 morbid state of mind or of the fact that one has not 
 found his true vocation in life ; for when a man has 
 found his work and is doing it, he has little time left 
 for such inquiries. 1 Moreover, if a man's mind is 
 honest and clear, he can generally answer the question 
 at once, without any elaborate investigation. Conse- 
 quently, when a man enters upon such inquiries, they 
 have seldom reference to any single action that he 
 has performed, but rather to his general attitude in 
 life. 
 
 4. SELF-EXAMINATION. Such self-examination is 
 often a direct result of a new awakening to a sense of 
 the moral imperative such as we have already described 
 as conversion ; but it may be carried on by men 
 periodically, without any such reawakening. A man 
 may ask himself whether his life is being lived on that 
 level which answers to his ideal of what life should be. 
 In asking this, he will generally mean partly to ask 
 whether his actions, viewed as external facts, are 
 exactly such as they ought to be whether he has 
 actually accomplished what was required of him in the 
 given situation ; and this is a question with regard to 
 overt fact. But frequently he will mean more than 
 
 induce them to perform these actions. But even in the stricter ac- 
 ceptation of the term, the inquiry into the purity of our motives is 
 not irrelevant See below, p. 359, note I, and p. 368, note i. 
 
 1 C/. Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, p. 201. That very wise man, 
 Goethe, has a remark on this, as on most other things. Referring 
 to a boy who could not console himself after he had committed 
 a trifling fault, " I was sorry to observe this," said Goethe, " for it 
 shows a too tender conscience, which values so highly its own 
 moral self that it will excuse nothing in it Such a conscience makes 
 hypochondriacal men, if it is not balanced by great activity." (Con* 
 versations with Eckermann.)
 
 4-] THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE. 
 
 this. He will frequently wish to ascertain whether the 
 general principles of his conduct are right, whether he 
 habitually acts in the best spirit as well as in the best 
 manner whether, for instance, he is perfectly disin- 
 terested in his conduct. No doubt such an inquiry, as 
 well as an inquiry into the spirit in which particular 
 actions have been done, is often an evidence of a 
 morbid habit of mind. A man's interests ought for the 
 most part to be concentrated in the objects which he 
 is seeking to accomplish rather than in his own inner 
 state.* And even if one wishes to vie\v his acts with 
 reference to the spirit in which they are done, it will 
 generally be best to do this by studying some ideal 
 type of the moral life, and endeavouring to follow in 
 his path, rather than by a direct contemplation of one's 
 own impulses and motives. The latter course has 
 nearly always a tendency to parr.lyze action and pro- 
 mote egoism. Still, there are times when the study of 
 one's own motives in particular actions is beneficial, 
 and also times at which it is desirable to take a survey 
 
 1 It is in such inquiries that we become aware of what may be 
 called the inner side of the virtues. The qualities involved in this 
 inner side of virtue purity of heart and the like seem to be what 
 Prof. Dewey understands by the " Cardinal Virtues." See above, p. 
 341, note i. It is probably true, as Green insists, that the inner and 
 outer side of virtuous action are in the long run exactly proportioned 
 to one another. " There is no real reason to doubt," says Green 
 (Prolegomena to Ethics, Book IV., chap, i., 295), " that the good or 
 evil in the motive of an action is exactly measured by the good or 
 evil in its consequences, as rightly estimated." But he admits that 
 this correspondence would be fully apparent only to omniscience. 
 For us, a certain act may be evidently the right one in a given situa- 
 tion (e. g. the killing of a tyrant, the passing of an Act of Parliament, 
 the relief of a destitute widow, etc.), even if we do not know what 
 motive has led to its being done. 
 
 > CJ. above, p. 355, noU.
 
 380 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. v, 
 
 of one's general attitude in life. This is a part of self- 
 knowledge ; and though, as Carlyle says, the motto 
 Know thyself \s an impossible one to carry out with 
 any completeness, yet it is important to make a cer- 
 tain approximation to the carrying of it out. One 
 reason of this is, that it is not always possible in our 
 actions to go fully into the reasons of what we do. We 
 often require to let ourselves go, relying on the intui- 
 tions that have been acquired in the course of our lives. 
 On such occasions it is important that we should know 
 how far we can trust ourselves to go. For this pur- 
 pose it is necessary to have an insight into the nature 
 of our "besetting sins," and these cannot always be 
 discovered from our overt acts. There are few, how- 
 ever, who carry this kind of self-knowledge very far. 
 "The heart is deceitful," and even those who observe 
 it most carefully are apt to miss some secret chambers. 
 The advice of an intimate friend will often help one 
 more than self-observation ; and even self-observation 
 is generally more successful in the form of a study of 
 our acts and habits than in that of a study of our secret 
 motives. 
 
 5. THE STUDY OF THE IDEAL. I have already re- 
 marked that it is usually a more profitable way of 
 developing the inner life rather to fix our attention on 
 some external type than to attend to our own motives. 
 Such types have frequently been selected and set up 
 for the imitation of whole nations and peoples e. g. 
 Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, and the various Roman Ca- 
 tholic saints. And, on a smaller scale, we have in- 
 numerable biographies of heroes held up as examples 
 not only of right action, but of a right attitude of mind 
 and heart Novelists also and poets have created for
 
 6.] THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE. 381 
 
 us imaginary types to serve the same end. 1 Indeed, 
 this may be said to be the end of all poetry, in so far 
 as poetry has an end at all. It is a " criticism of life," 
 inasmuch as it presents to us higher ideals of what 
 life might be and ought to be and that chiefly on its 
 inner side. 2 
 
 6. THE MONASTIC LIFE. The importance of the 
 study of the inner life, whether by direct self-exam- 
 ination, or by the contemplation of ideal patterns, 
 has at certain times been so keenly felt that men have 
 set themselves apart, like the Eastern mystics or the 
 monastic orders of Catholic Christianity, for the express 
 purpose of making this their study. We must regard 
 this, in general, as an undesirable form of the Division 
 of Labour. It had a certain justification in lawless 
 times, when most men were so much occupied with 
 violent action that they had no time for reflection. In 
 such times men who led a contemplative life had the 
 task of acting as the inner life for the whole commu- 
 nity to which they belonged. And perhaps in some 
 Oriental countries the nature of the climate renders it 
 difficult to carry on the active and the contemplative 
 life together. 3 The existence of a monastic order has 
 in fact somewhat the same justification as the setting 
 apart of a special day for religious worship. But just 
 as, when the Sabbath is too rigidly divided from the 
 rest of the week, it tends to become a mere ceremonial 
 
 1 On the moral and aesthetic significance of " types," the student 
 may be referred to Stephen's Science of Ethics, pp. 74-76. Reference 
 may also be made to Bacon's De Augmentis, Book VII., chap, iil 
 
 8 Cf. the famous passage in Goethe's Wilhelm Meister, Book II., 
 chap, il, ending, " Who but the poet was it that first formed gods 
 for us ; that exalted us to them, and brought them down to ML' 
 
 See Marshall's Principles of Economics, p. iz
 
 382 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. v. 
 
 observance, with little reference to actual practice, so 
 when the priestly or monastic order is too rigidly 
 divided from the rest of the community, the inner life 
 comes to be regarded as their special province, with 
 which the rest of mankind have no concern. 1 This 
 has a pernicious effect on general morals, and ulti- 
 mately on the morals of the monastic order itself. No 
 order of men can confine their attention exclusively 
 to the inner side of life ; and the pretence of doing so 
 turns rapidly into cant and hypocrisy. Just as it is 
 desirable that secular interests should not be entirely 
 forgotten on Sunday, nor the religious spirit throughout 
 the remainder of the week, so it is desirable as a gen- 
 eral rule that "all the Lord's people should be pro- 
 phets," or at any rate that prophets should retain 
 sufficient contact with the world to enable men of the 
 world to catch something of the spirit of the prophets. 
 7. BEAUTIFUL SOULS. Apart, however, from the 
 existence of any special order for the cultivation of 
 the inner life, we occasionally find individuals who 
 
 1 Cf. the amusing account, in Milton's Areopagitica, 55, of the 
 man whose religion has become " a dividual movable * : " A wealthy 
 man . . . finds religion to be a traffic so entangled, and of so 
 many piddling accounts, that ... he cannot skill to keep a 
 stock going upon that trade. . . What does he therefore, but 
 resolves to give over toiling, and to find himself out some factor, to 
 whose care and credit he may commit the whole managing of his 
 religious affairs ; some divine of note and estimation that must be. 
 To him he adheres, resigns the whole warehouse of his religion, 
 with all the locks and keys, into his custody ; and indeed makes 
 the very person of that man his religion. . . . His religion comes 
 home at night, prays, is liberally supped, and sumptuously laid to 
 leep ; rises, is saluted, and after the malmsey, or some well-spiced 
 bruage ... his religion walks abroad at eight, and leaves hi 
 kind entertainer in the shop trading all day without bis religion."
 
 8.] THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE. 383 
 
 set themselves apart for this purpose. It has been 
 customary to describe these as "beautiful souls" 
 (schone Seelen) ; and Goethe has given a striking 
 account of one in his Wilhelm Meister.* They are 
 usually people who have been prevented in some way 
 from taking part in the active affairs of life. The lives 
 of such individuals have often a singular charm, and 
 the good effects of their influence are sometimes felt 
 over a wide circle ; but this is especially the case when 
 they do not entirely withdraw themselves from contact 
 with active life. If they do this, their contemplation 
 is apt to become emptied of all real content ; their fine 
 feelings turn into hysterical dreaming ; and it is well if 
 they do not end in madness. 
 
 8. ASCETICISM. The development of the study of 
 the inner life is generally accompanied by a contempt 
 for pleasure. This sometimes goes so far, as in the 
 case of the Indian mystics and the Medieval monks, 
 as to lead to the positive infliction of torture. The 
 ostensible reason for this is frequently the idea that 
 torture is pleasing to the gods ; but the fundamental 
 v'eason seems to lie in the desire of suppressing the 
 flesh and its lusts. This is of course in some degree 
 an essential of the moral life in any form ; but asceti- 
 cism seems to commit the error of turning the means 
 into an end. It is important to repress our lower 
 desires, in order that we may be able to devote our- 
 selves, without let or impediment, to the highest ends of 
 life. But the ascetic regards the suppression of desire 
 as the end in itself. And the effort thus to suppress all 
 
 1 Carlyle erroneously translated schSne Seele " fair Saint* For 
 some very suggestive remarks on the attitude of the "beautiful 
 soul," see Caird's Hegpl, pp. 28-31.
 
 384 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. V. 
 
 natural desire frequently defeats its own aim. It con- 
 centrates attention on the objects of desire, and in a 
 sense makes a man the slave of his desires as truly as 
 in the case of him who yields to them. The best way 
 to free ourselves from our lower desires is, as we have 
 already indicated, to interest ourselves in something 
 better. It is only into a mind swept and garnished 
 that the devils can enter : when it is well furnished 
 and occupied they can find no room. 
 
 9. THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE. The study of the 
 inner life is, in truth, but a part of the general life of 
 speculation as distinguished from action. The distinc- 
 tion between the active and the contemplative life has 
 impressed men in all ages ; and different thinkers have 
 attached importance to the one or the other. Aristotle 
 placed the contemplative life (meaning by that the 
 pursuit of scientific and philosophic truth) above the 
 practical life in which the ordinary social virtues are 
 exercised.* It is essentially the same point of view * 
 that we find among many Eastern mystics and Medi- 
 aeval saints, and, in more modern times, in such men 
 as Wordsworth, who withdraw from the struggle of 
 ordinary labours and find a higher life and a serener 
 wisdom in the contemplation of nature. Wordsworth 
 ays of nature that, 
 
 " She has a world of ready wealth 
 
 The mind and heart to bless, 
 Spontaneous wisdom breathed by health, 
 Truth breathed by cheerfulness * ; 
 
 1 See above, p. 350. 
 
 * Ethics, Book X., chaps, vil and viiL 
 
 * Except (a very important qualification) that Aristotle regarded 
 the active life of social duty as an indispensable preparation for tha 
 higher life of thought Moreover, even the life of thought he re*
 
 9-] THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE. 385 
 
 and the same thought finds utterance, in more homely 
 fashion, from Walt Whitman, when he says, " I loal 
 and invite my soul." Ruskin also has sung the praises 
 of rest and contemplation, and William Morris has 
 found his earthly paradise in "a century of rest," in 
 which the turmoil of modern civilization shall have 
 been appeased, and men shall find a more worthy 
 existence in a closer walk with nature. Similar ideas 
 dominate Emerson and Thoreau. All these seem to 
 think that the contemplative life is essentially higher 
 than the active, and that this higher life is to be reached 
 simply by withdrawing from the life of action. On 
 the other hand, Carlyle preached a gospel of labour, 
 and was fond of quoting the words of Sophocles that 
 "the end of man is an action and not a thought," or 
 the exclamation of \rnauld "Rest 1 Shall I not have 
 all eternity to rest in ? " This view fits in well also 
 with the robust philosophy of Browning, who cannot 
 even accept the orthodox view of the rest of eternity, 
 but conceives of it as the most fitting address to his 
 departing spirit 
 
 " ' Thrive and strive ' cry, ' Speed ! Fight on, fare ever, there 
 as here!'" 
 
 The truth seems to be that an ordinary healthy hu- 
 man existence requires boths ides. Thereare energetic 
 natures, like Csesar or Napoleon, that seem able to 
 go on with a perpetual activity, scarcely requiring 
 rest or reflection. But the activity of such men is not 
 usually the wisest or the most beneficial. There are 
 others whose special mission it seems to be to with- 
 draw from the world of action and bring messages to 
 
 garded as essentially a higher form of activity, to which the life of 
 the good citizen leads up. 
 
 Eth. as
 
 386 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. V, 
 
 mankind from the inner world of feeling and reflection. 
 But the wisdom of such men is apt to be deficient in 
 the depth of universal applicability which a wider con- 
 tact with life can give. The Words worths and Emer- 
 sons are not equal to the Shakespeares and Goethes. For 
 the majority of men, at any rate, times of action natu- 
 rally alternate with times of reflection, times of creation 
 with times of re-creation. In retirement we criticise 
 the acts of life ; in life we criticise the ideas of retire- 
 ment Action and reflection are the gymnastic and 
 music of moral culture.' 
 
 10. RELATION OF THE INNER TO THE OUTER LIFE. 
 Looking at it in a more speculative light, we may 
 express the relation of the inner to the outer life in 
 this way. The life of unreflective action takes place 
 entirely within the universe with which we have iden- 
 tified ourselves. In the contemplative life we bring 
 ourselves into relation with the broader universe, 
 whether revealed in the form of the moral ideal within 
 us, some ideal exemplar without us, the beauty and 
 suggestiveness of nature, the discovery of scientific 
 law, or in any other shape. Now, since the life of al] 
 
 1 Q Goethe's famous lines 
 
 " Es bildet ein Talent sich In der Stille, 
 Sich ein Character in dem Strom der Welt" 
 (" A genius forms itself in solitude ; 
 A character, in struggling with the world") 
 
 " Music" and " Gymnastic* were the names of the two elements in 
 Greek education " Music," of course, including what used to be 
 called " polite literature " and a good deal more. Plato points out in 
 his Republic (Book III.) that both these elements are required for 
 the development of character. See Nettleship's admirable essay 
 on "The Theory of Education in Plato's Republic* (Hellenica, pp
 
 10.] THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE. 387 
 
 of us involves progress, or, at the very lowest, re- 
 adjustment to new conditions, it is impossible that it 
 should be carried on successfully without a periodic 
 reference to the principles on which it is based. Like 
 chronometers, we can go on for a time by the mere 
 impulse of our moral springs, but if we are to be kept 
 in permanent order we must readjust ourselves by the 
 stars. On the other hand, it would be a poor chro- 
 nometer which was perpetually being set, and never 
 could be let go. A life of pure reflection would never 
 acquire any positive content. It would have principles, 
 but no facts to apply them to ; yet it is by contact with 
 such facts that the principles themselves grow. It is 
 experience that tests them, and that sends us back 
 again to improve them. "Best men are moulded out 
 of faults " ; for it is our errors of conduct that reveal 
 to us the defects of our principles, and show us where 
 they need improvement.* 
 
 There are, then, these two sides in every healthy 
 moral life. It is a mistake, on the one hand, to sup- 
 pose that all the worth of our life lies in its outer acts. 
 This is not even the only part of us that affects those 
 with whom we come in contact. "Men imagine," 
 says Emerson, " that they communicate their virtue or 
 vice only by overt actions, and do not see that virtue 
 or vice emit a breath every moment." Of course, this 
 means in reality that the virtuous man acts a little dif- 
 ferently from the vicious man even where the external 
 act appears to be the same. The beauty of the inner 
 .ife, in Aristotle's phrase, "shines through." Hence 
 the importance of having the heart right On the other 
 
 1 Hence the element of truth in the popular view about the 
 sowing wild oats.* See below, p. 381.
 
 388 ETHICS. [BK. m., CH. v. 
 
 hand, it is a mistake to suppose that we should be 
 perpetually fingering our inner motives. If we do this^ 
 we shall always find that they are somewhat wrong. 
 The impulse of the moment can never quite rise to the 
 dignity of the eternal ideal ; and the more we watch 
 it, the less likely is it so to rise. If we make sure that 
 our overt action is thoroughly right, the right motive 
 will soon become habitual to us ; * and it is a man's 
 habitual motives that are important, not the motives 
 that may happen to enter into a particular act. 
 
 11. THE VIRTUOUS MAN AND THE WORLD. If our 
 life is to be one both of action and reflection, it must 
 also in a sense be one that is both in the world and 
 rsotofit A life of activity cannot be one of entire 
 withdrawal from the world and its ways ; yet the man 
 who guides himself by reflection will not simply be 
 carried along by its currents. The man who is simply 
 reflective and not active is sometimes characterized as 
 
 1 It might be thought, from what has been already said in chap, iil, 
 that, if we are resolutely setting ourselves to do good actions, the 
 motive of them must necessarily be good. But this is only partly 
 true. If a statesman devotes himself persistently to the passing 
 of beneficial laws, this must be because he takes the benefit of his 
 country as part of his motive. But he may also be influenced by the 
 desire of personal fame, or even by that of spiting a rival A man 
 can seldom be quite sure that some such lower motives do not form 
 part of his inducement to the performance of an action which he 
 clearly sees to be in itself desirable. But the best practical coursf, 
 is evidently that of habituating ourselves to the performance of 
 actions which we perceive to be desirable. By doing this, we ac- 
 custom ourselves to the point of view of the "universe " within which 
 the actions are good. We forget the lower universe of personal 
 ambition, or of personal spite ; and, by forgetting it, we gradually 
 cease to live in it We lose ourselves in the pure interest in our ob- 
 jective end ; and this is the highest motive i. e. on the assumption 
 that our objective end is really a desirable one, forming ?n element 
 to human progress.
 
 II.] THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE. 389 
 
 "over-conscientious." 1 Sometimes this reproach is 
 merely an indication of prejudice on the part of "men 
 of the world"; but often it is a mark of a real want 
 of decision of character, like that of Hamlet, or a 
 want of appreciation of the limits within which our 
 moral life has to be lived. 3 It is a man of this type 
 who is sometimes said to be " so good that he is good 
 for nothing" ("si buon che val niente"). On the 
 other hand, the commoner defect is that of living 
 entirely within the universe of the society in which 
 we find ourselves, and following a multitude to do 
 evil. The good man adapts himself to his environ- 
 ment, but tries at the same time to make his environ- 
 ment better. He does not simply try to keep himself 
 "unspotted of the world," but also to clear the world 
 of spot. Such a man will in a sense be "not of the 
 world." He will live in the light of principles which 
 are not fully embodied in the modes of action around 
 him. But he will not withdraw into himself, and 
 abstain from taking part in the activities of his world. 
 This attitude of the virtuous man is strikingly de- 
 picted by Wordsworth in his sonnet to Milton, 3 in 
 
 1 See Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, p. 323, and Dewey's Outlines 
 of Ethics, p. 201. 
 
 a Froude says of Julius Caesar (Cccsar, p. 339), " His habit was to 
 take facts as they were, and when satisfied that his object was just, 
 to go the readiest way to it" A very conscientious man can seldom 
 bring himself to do this, and hence lacks " force of will." Cf above, 
 pp. 82-3. Descartes was so much afraid of the indecision due to a 
 reflective habit, that he thought it necessary to make it a special 
 practical rule for himself, never to hesitate when once he had come 
 to the conclusion that a particular line of conduct was on the whole 
 the best See his Discourse on Method, Part III. (Veitch's translation, 
 
 P- 25). 
 C/. also Milton's own emphatic declaration in the Arcopagitica t
 
 390 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. v. 
 
 which he expresses both his aloofness and his readi- 
 ness to serve. 
 
 "Thy soul was like a star and dwelt apart ; 
 
 And yet thy heart 
 
 The lowliest duties on herself did lay." 
 
 12. THE MORAL REFORMER. This twofold attitude is 
 perhaps best seen in the case of great moral reformers. 
 Every good man, no doubt, is a moral reformer on 
 a small scale ; but occasionally in the history of a 
 nation there arises a man who holds up new ideals of 
 the moral life, and induces men in some degree to 
 adopt them, thus advancing the general moral ideas 
 of mankind. Types of such reformers are Buddha, 
 Socrates, and Jesus. These are generally men who 
 have a profound appreciation of the moral life of their 
 peoples, and who by reflection upon it are led to 
 transcend its limitations. There was no better 
 Athenian citizen than Socrates, none more attached 
 to his native state, none more ardent in the perform- 
 ance of civic duties, few more thoroughly at home 
 in its customs and traditions. 1 IJut he was more than 
 this. He had his hours of reflective abstraction, in 
 which he went beneath the moral traditions of his 
 nation and examined the fundamental principles on 
 which they rested. This reflective examination en- 
 abled him to transcend .the limitations of Greek mo- 
 rality, and to prepare the way for deeper conceptions 
 
 '' I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and 
 unbreathed, that never sallies out and seeks her adversary, but slinks 
 out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not 
 without dust and heat" See also Bacon's DeAugmentis, Book VII, 
 chap. i. 
 1 See Zeller's Socrates and the Socratic School, Part II., chap v.
 
 12.] THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE. 
 
 of duty. Similarly, Jesus was no ascetic or recluse. 
 He "came eating and drinking," and was familiar 
 with the ideas and habits of his people, even of those 
 that were regarded as outcast and degraded. But he 
 had also his times of retirement, temptations in the 
 wilderness, and withdrawal to mountains. This com- 
 bination of active participation and reflective with- 
 drawal enabled him to sum up the morality of his 
 nation, and by summing it up to s"et it upon a deeper 
 basis, which fitted it to become the morality of the 
 modern civilized world. So it is with most great moral 
 reformers. They hold, in a sense, the mirror up to 
 their times and peoples. They show them clearly 
 what is already stirring dimly within their own con- 
 sciences. They often seem to proclaim something 
 entirely new and contrary to the whole spirit of the 
 age ; and consequently they often become martyrs 
 to their convictions, as both Socrates and Jesus did. 
 And no doubt they often do, like Moses, bring down 
 a new law from heaven. But the new law was nearly 
 always contained implicitly in the current morality of 
 their time. They only interpreted that morality more 
 carefully and strictly, freed it from self-contradictions, 
 and pressed it back to the fundamental principles on 
 which it rested. * When they do more than this, their 
 work is seldom entirely beneficial. It is too much 
 in the air, and has too little reference to the actual 
 condition of things, to have much practical effect. 
 Perhaps we may venture to blame our own great 
 moral reformers of recent times, Carlyle and Ruskin, 
 and, still more, Tolstoi, that they have made too little 
 
 * See Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, pp. 323 330, Muirhead's Ele- 
 ments of Ethics, pp. 253-4, an ^ Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, pp. 189-901
 
 392 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. V. 
 
 effort to understand what is best in the spirit of their 
 times, and that their censures, consequently, are too 
 much like the voice of one crying in the wilderness, 
 an external accusation instead of an internal criticism. 
 But even this would be only partly true. Carlyle and 
 Ruskin are on the whole no exception to the general 
 nature of moral reformers. Much of what is best in 
 the spirit of the age finds in them its best expression, 
 and their criticisms are to a very large extent organic 
 to the thing criticised. They are to a certain extent 
 the criticism of the age upon itself, its condemnation 
 by its own principles, strictly interpreted ; and this is 
 perhaps the only kind of criticism that is permanently 
 beneficial
 
 I.] MORAL PATHOLOGY. 393 
 
 CHAPTER VL 
 
 MORAL PATHOLOGY. 
 
 1. MORAL EVIL. So far we have been mainly occu- 
 pied with the consideration of the moral life in its posi- 
 tive aspect as a development towards goodness and 
 perfection of character and social activity. We must 
 now dwell for a little on its more shady aspects. Man's 
 life is not a simple struggle towards virtue and holi- 
 ness : it is quite as often a lapsing into vice and sin. 
 This aspect we have on the whole neglected ; and we 
 must now give a little consideration to it. 
 
 Each man's moral life may, as we have seen, be 
 regarded as a universe in itself. This universe may be 
 a broad one or a narrow one. In the case of the 
 majority of men it is sufficiently narrow to exclude 
 many human interests. This narrowness is a source 
 of conflict. It causes the individual good to appear 
 to be in opposition to the general good of humanity. 
 There is a sense in which no one ever seeks anything 
 except what he regards as good. Quidquid petitur 
 petitur sub specie boni. Evil is not sought as evil, but 
 as a good under particular circumstances. 1 But 
 
 1 Many of the acts that we regard as vices were at one time scarcely 
 vices at all. They are the virtues of a lower stage of civilization, a 
 lower universe which has been superseded, but in which some men 
 still linger. Thus, Prof. Alexander says (Moral Order and Progress
 
 394 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. VL 
 
 the good sought is only the good of the universe con- 
 cerned at the particular moment. This need not even 
 be what the individual himself, taking a survey of his 
 life, would regard as good for him : still less is it 
 necessarily identical with or conformable to the general 
 good. It may be the good of a very narrow universe 
 the universe of a man who is making no serious 
 efforts to reach that rational point of view in which 
 alone, as we have seen, true freedom is to be found ; 
 one who, remaining in servitude to his passions and 
 animal propensities, prefers "bondage with ease to 
 strenuous liberty." Indeed, there are even cases in 
 which opposition to the general good becomes almost 
 an end in itself; in which an individual is inclined to 
 say, like Milton's Satan, "Evil, be thou my good." 
 Social duty presents itself as a continual menace to a 
 man who has not learned to identify the good of society 
 with his own ; and he is thus tempted to take up arms 
 
 p. 307) : " Murder and lying and theft are a damnosa hcreditas left 
 us from a time when they were legitimate institutions : when it was 
 honourable to kill all but members of the clan, or to lie without 
 scruple to gain an end, and when there was promiscuity of property." 
 Cf. Dewey's Outlines of Ethics, pp. 215-16. In this connection, Ben- 
 tham refers to a passage in Homer where " Menelaus, courteously 
 addressing a stranger, seeks to learn his occupation, and asks him 
 what his business may be, whether by chance it is that of a pirate 
 or what other." In Aristotle's Politics (I., viii. 7, 8.) pirates are men- 
 tioned along with fishermen, hunters, etc., as classes of workers who 
 maintain themselves without retail trade. In Sparta, again, it was 
 not thought dishonourable to steal, though it was thought dishonour- 
 able to be found out Cf. Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, p. 210. Per- 
 haps some forms of action which are popularly approved at the pre- 
 sent day will seem equally surprising in future generations Indeed, 
 it would seem that even the pirate or filibuster has not ceased to be 
 honoured in certain quarters among ourselves. And we can hardly 
 even say laudatur et alget.
 
 I.] MORAL PATHOLOGY. . 395 
 
 against it. f He cannot simply set it aside, as he can 
 narrower goods that lie outside his own : it is a wider 
 circle that includes his own, and he must either identify 
 himself with it or fight against it. This war against 
 society seldom indeed presents itself in the extreme 
 form in which it is depicted in Milton's Satan or Shake- 
 speare's Timon of Athens ; but on a smaller scale we see 
 it often enough in the wilful mischief of children, or in 
 the anti-social delight that gives its edge to scandal. 
 
 But apart from any such war against the social good, 
 even the best of men show at times "the defects of 
 their qualities," i. e. the limitations connected with the 
 particular kind of universe in which they live ; and the 
 more definite that universe is, the more marked are 
 likely to be the defects. Hence the shortcomings 
 which are often noticed in men of strong and original 
 characters. A weak character has no definite limits. 
 It flows vaguely over the boundaries of many universes, 
 without distinctly occupying any. It excludes little 
 because it contains little. It takes on, like a chame- 
 leon, the colour of any universe with which it comes 
 in contact. Such a person is not likely to offend 
 profoundly against any laws of his social surround- 
 ings. He will rather be "faultily faultless," drifting 
 securely because he is making for nowhere, carried 
 safely by wind and tide without any force of seaman- 
 ship. It is to such that the proverb applies that 
 "Fortune favours fools." No one can find any fault 
 
 1 C/. Shakespeare's King Richard III. : 
 
 " And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, 
 To entertain these fair well-spoken days, 
 I am determined to prove a villain, 
 And hate the idle pleasures of these days."
 
 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. VL 
 
 with one who has "no character at all." 1 On the 
 other hand, one who has great strength of char- 
 acter in some particular direction has generally some 
 accompanying weakness. His universe is a clear- 
 cut circle, and excludes many elements of a com- 
 plete moral life. Thus, the great poet, tenderly sensi- 
 tive and full of high aspirations, is often deficient in 
 steadiness of will and in attention to the more con- 
 ventional rules of morals. The great reformer is apt 
 to be inconsiderate of the weakness of others, and 
 sometimes even unscrupulous in selecting the means 
 to secure his purposes. The man who is devoted to 
 great public achievements is often, like Socrates, un- 
 successful in his domestic life. And so in many other 
 cases. Hence in our moral judgments on individuals 
 it is very necessary to consider not merely where they 
 fell short, but also what they positively achieved or 
 endeavoured. 3 A man's sins are the shadows of his 
 virtues ; and though a life of transparent goodness 
 would cast no shadow, yet, so long as men fall short 
 of this, the strongest virtues will often have the deepest 
 shades. 
 
 2. VICE. Moral defects may be regarded either 
 from the inner or from the outer side as flaws of 
 character or as issuing in evil deeds. From the former 
 
 1 " Nothing so true as what you once let fall, 
 
 Most women have no characters at all." POPE. 
 
 It is perhaps scarcely necessary to say that I do not mean to ex- 
 press agreement with this dictum. 
 
 * Cf. Carlyle's Essay on Burns : " Granted, the ship comes into 
 harbour with shrouds and tackle damaged ; the pilot is blameworthy ; 
 he has not been all-wise and all-powerful : but to know how blame- 
 worthy, tell us first whether his voyage has been round the Globe, 
 or only to Ramsgate and the Isle of Dos."
 
 2.] MORAL PATHOLOGY. 397 
 
 point of view, we may describe them as vices vice * 
 being the term that corresponds to virtue, and that 
 denotes the inner stain of character rather than the 
 overt act. From the outer side, we may speak of them 
 rather as sins and crimes. The inner side is more 
 extensive than the outer ; for stains in the inner char- 
 acter may be to a large extent concealed, and not 
 issue definitely in evil deeds though they can scarcely 
 fail to give a certain colour to our outer acts. It is 
 chiefly Christianity that has taught us to attach as 
 much weight to the evil in the heart as to the evil in 
 outer deeds. 2 The more superficial view is to regard 
 the latter as alone of importance. Such sayings as 
 " whoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, has 
 committed adultery with her already in his heart," 
 gave a new extension to the conception of morals. 
 Similarly, the conception of morality was deepened 
 when it was recognized that an action which is ex- 
 ternally good may in reality be evil if it is not done 
 from the highest motive. "Whatever is not of faith 
 is sin. "3 It was from this point of view that some of 
 
 1 From Latin vitiunt, a defect or blemish. Sin appears to come 
 from a root meaning a breach of right The corresponding Greek 
 word, ofiopWa, means an error. Crime is from the Latin crimen, an 
 accusation or judgment 
 
 3 The term generally employed by Christian writers, however, is 
 rather Sin than Vice. And thus Sin, though properly referring to an 
 outer act rather than to a stain of character, has acquired the sense 
 of Vice, and indeed has come to bear an even more inward meaning 
 than Vice. For Vice corresponds to Virtue, and means a general 
 habit of character issuing in particular bad acts ; whereas Sin, as 
 used by Christian writers, refers more often to the inner disposition 
 of the heart, want of purity in the motive, and the like. It is in this 
 sense, for instance, that St Paul speaks of " sin dwelling in him.* 
 
 * C/. Sidgwick's History oj Ethics, pp 114-115
 
 398 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. VL 
 
 the early Christian writers spoke of the virtues of the 
 heathen as only "splendid vices." 1 
 
 If we were to attempt to classify vices, the subdivi- 
 sions of them would naturally correspond to those of 
 the virtues. Thus we should have vices arising from 
 our yielding to pleasure, or failing to endure pain, or 
 not being sufficiently wise in our choice or strenuous 
 in our purposes. We should also have various vices 
 connected with imperfections in our social relation- 
 ships. But into the details of such a classification we 
 need not here enter. 
 
 3. SIN. Although it is true, however, that the inner 
 side of an evil character is quite as important, from a 
 moral point of view, as the evil acts that flow from it, 
 yet it must be remembered that there is a considerable 
 difference between vice that remains in the heart and 
 vice that issues in an evil deed ; just as there is a dif- 
 ference between virtue that remains mere "good in- 
 tention " and virtue that issues in deed. Mr. Muirhead 
 remarks on this point*: "How far the resolution is 
 from the completed act has become a proverb in respect 
 to good resolutions. It is not, perhaps, very creditable 
 to human nature that a similar reflection with regard 
 to bad resolutions does not make us more charitable 
 to persons who are caught apparently on the way to a 
 crime. Hoffding (Psychology, Eng. ed., p. 342) quotes 
 a case of a woman who, having got into a neighbour's 
 garden for the purpose of setting fire to her house, and 
 been taken almost in the act, swore solemnly in court 
 
 i Green, however, rightly insists that the best Greek writers were 
 perfectly aware of the importance of the inner motive. See his 
 Prolegomena to Ethics, Book III., chap, v., 252 ; and # below, 
 
 * Elements of Ethics, p. 50, note.
 
 3-] MORAL PATHOLOGY. 399 
 
 that she knew she would not have perpetrated the act, 
 but hesitated to state upon oath that she had abandoned 
 her intention when she was surprised. With this we 
 may compare the passage in Mark Rutherford's story 
 of Miriams Schooling, where, speaking of Miriam's 
 temptation to take her own life, he says : ' Afterwards 
 the thought that she had been close to suicide was for 
 months a new terror to her. She was unaware that 
 the distance between us and dreadful crimes is much 
 greater often than it appears to be. ' " ' Perhaps we should 
 say, then, not merely that " Hell is paved with good 
 intentions," but that Heaven is paved with bad ones. 
 It should be remembered, however, that there is an 
 important difference here between good intentions and 
 bad intentions. Bad intentions, like good intentions, 
 are often frustrated by infirmity of purpose. In this 
 case the good intention is not so good as the good act ; 
 whereas the bad intention is on the whole worse than 
 the bad act. We do not think the better of Macbeth 
 for his hesitation in committing murder ; and often we 
 feel almost an admiration for a determined crime. On 
 the other hand, if a crime is prevented by genuine 
 moral scruples, which arise often just at the moment 
 when we have the opportunity of actually performing 
 
 1 Cf. Carlyle's French Revolution, vol. iii., Book I., chap. iv. j 
 "From the purpose of crime to the act there is an abyss ; wonderful 
 to think of. The finger lies on the pistol ; but the man is not yet a 
 murderer : nay, his whole nature staggering at such a consum- 
 mation, is there not a confused pause rather one last instant of pos- 
 *ibility for him ?" This distinction is, indeed, generally recognized 
 in our ordinary moral judgments though perhaps it is not so much 
 dwelt upon as the corresponding distinction in the case of good 
 actions. Cf. Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part IL, sect 
 111, chap, ii
 
 400 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. vt 
 
 the deed, the hesitation which then arises is partly an 
 exculpation. Thus we think on the whole the bettel 
 of Lady Macbeth for her exclamation 
 
 " Had he not resembled 
 My father as he slept, I had done!" 
 
 While, then, it Is the case that a good intention is 
 always inferior to the corresponding good deed, 1 it 
 depends on circumstances whether a bad intention is 
 or is not less evil than a bad deed. 2 
 
 So also, from the point of view of the development 
 of the character of the agent, a bad deed is often less 
 evil than a stain in the character which does not go 
 forth in action. An overt act brings, as a rule, an overt 
 punishment. At any rate, the wickedness of the act is 
 made openly apparent, in a way in which an evil 
 thought is not made apparent And when a man thus 
 sees plainly the consequences of his action, he is often 
 led to repent of it and amend his life. It is here that 
 we see the element of truth in the common idea of the 
 
 1 Even this, no doubt, is subject to some qualification. A compar- 
 atively unscrupulous man may often perform an action on the whole 
 good, where a more conscientious man would hesitate. In such a 
 case we should not always regard the conscientious man as blame- 
 worthy. Still, even here, the good intention of the conscientious 
 man is not so good as his good action would have been, if only he 
 could have brought himself to do it though it may be as praise- 
 worthy as the good action of a man who is more unscrupulous. 
 
 a Of course evil thoughts may also pass through a man's mind 
 without getting the length even of intentions. In this case they 
 are not morally culpable. C/. Milton's Paradise Lost, Book V. 
 " Evil into the mind of God or man 
 May come and go, so unapproved, and leave 
 No spot or blame behind." 
 
 Even such evil, however, may be taken as evidence of the existence
 
 4-] MORAL PATHOLOGY. 40 1 
 
 benefit of "sowing wild oats." Here also we ee the 
 force of Luther's Pecca fortiter. * If there is evil in a 
 man's heart it is generally best that it should come out 
 plainly. There is more hope of a straightforward sin- 
 ner than of one who is neither cold nor hot.* 
 
 4. CRIME. The term Crime is generally used in a 
 narrower sense than sin, It denotes only those offences 
 against society which are recognized by national law, 
 and which are liable to punishment. It is impossible 
 that all moral offences should be brought under this 
 category. Ingratitude, for instance, cannot be made 
 punishable by law, because it would be practically 
 impossible to specify the offences that come under this 
 head. Again, the moral sense of conscientious persons 
 is constantly outrunning the ordinary moral code of 
 the society to which they belong, and thus inventing 
 
 of some lower universe within a man's nature some extinct vol- 
 cano, as it were which may at some time or other burst forth into 
 action. Milton, I suppose, would scarcely have admitted this ai 
 least with regard to God. 
 i C/. Browning's The Statue and the Bust 
 
 " The sin I impute to each frustrate ghost 
 Is, the unlit lamp and the ungirt loin, 
 Though the end in view was a vice, I say." 
 
 See Jones's Browning as a Philosophical and Religious Teacher, p^ 
 in 118. 
 
 3 Similarly, in the life of a state, it is often desirable that an evil 
 should be brought to a head. For this reason, it has often been ob- 
 served that it is generally better to have a thoroughly bad despot 
 than a half good one. Thus Hallam remarks (Constitutional History 
 of England), "We are much indebted to the memory of Barbara, 
 Duchess of Cleveland, Louisa, Duchess of Portsmouth, and Mrs. 
 Eleanor Gwyn. . . . They played a serviceable part in ridding 
 the kingdom of its 'besotted loyalty." Cf. Buckle's History of Civil" 
 ization, vol. i., p, 338, where this passage is more fullyigiven. 
 Eth. 96
 
 402 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. VL 
 
 sins which are not recognized as crimes. Also when 
 the evil effects of a sin fall mainly on the perpetrator 
 of it, it is generally thought unnecessary to have a 
 special law against it. 
 
 5. PUNISHMENT. Sin always brings evil conse 
 quences with it, and these evil consequences always 
 react in some way upon the perpetrator. It was one 
 of the paradoxes of the Socratic teaching that it is 
 worse for a man to do wrong than to suffer wrong. In 
 a sense this is true. The consequences of suffering 
 wrong are external. They do not hurt the soul ; where- 
 as when a man does wrong, he lowers himself in the 
 scale of being, and thus wrongs himself worse than 
 any one else could wrong him. Still, the evil effects 
 of a man's wrongdoing upon himself are not always 
 apparent either to himself or to others. He often seems 
 to have got off scot-free. Now this is contrary to our 
 natural sense of justice. We naturally think that a 
 man should be rewarded according to his deeds. And 
 this idea seems to have a rational justification. The 
 virtuous man is fighting on ihe side of human progress, 
 and we feel it natural to expect that the gods will fight 
 with him, and that his labours will prosper. The vi- 
 cious man, on the other hand, is fighting against the 
 gods, against our ideals of right ; and it seems unnatural 
 and unreasonable that his course should prosper. If 
 for a time the virtuous man is unsuccessful, we yet feel 
 bound to believe that his ultimate reward cannot "be 
 dust." ' His cause at least must prosper, unless the 
 world is founded on injustice ; and it is natural to ex- 
 pect and hope that he will prosper along with it On 
 
 > See the concluding paragraphs in Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics*
 
 5-] MORAL PATHOLOGY. 403 
 
 the other hand, if the wicked for a time seems to 
 flourish, we cannot help believing that his triumph is 
 ephemeral, that in the long run the wages of sin must 
 be death. It is here that the natural feelings of grati- 
 tude and revenge find their rational basis. Of course, 
 we are not here maintaining that these feelings derive 
 their origin from any such rational consideration. The 
 psychological question of the development of these 
 feelings is not now under consideration. 1 But these 
 feelings could scarcely maintain their ground in the 
 developed consciousness of mankind unless they had 
 support in reason ; and it is this rational support that 
 we have now to take notice of. 
 
 Now it is out of these natural feelings that reward 
 and punishment take their origin. In the case of 
 revenge, indeed, and to some extent even in the case 
 of gratitude, there is a certain tendency for the feeling 
 to grow weaker as the race develops, so far as merely 
 personal relationships are concerned. The primeval 
 man resents keenly every wrong done to himself or to 
 those who are intimately connected with himself, and 
 seeks to return it at the earliest opportunity upon the 
 head of the perpetrator. As the moral consciousness 
 develops, this feeling of personal resentment becomes 
 less keen. Men begin to learn that their merely per- 
 sonal wrongs are not of infinite importance ; and under 
 certain circumstances forgiveness becomes possible. 
 They see that a wrongdoer to them is not necessarily 
 a wrongdoer to humanity ; and it is only this last that 
 
 1 On this point, see Mill's Utilitarianism, chap. v. See also Adam 
 Smith'* Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part II., sect. II., chap, in., 
 where the distinction between an inquiry into the origin of revenge 
 and an inquiry into its rational basis is clearly drawn.
 
 404 ETHICS. [BK. IIL, CH. VL 
 
 is of moment. As regards society, however, there is 
 not anything like the same weakening of the sense of 
 injury. A wrong against social law z's a wrong against 
 humanity, and cannot be forgiven until the offended 
 majesty of the law has been appeased, t. e. until the 
 wrongness and essential nullity of the act has been 
 made apparent It is here that the justification of 
 punishment is to be found. 
 
 6. THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT. Three principal the- 
 ories of the aims of punishment have been put forward. 
 These are generally known as the preventive (or deter- 
 rent), the educative (or reformative), and the retribu- 
 tive theories. According to the first view, the aim 
 of punishment is to deter others from committing simi- 
 lar offences. It is expressed in the familiar dictum of 
 the judge "You are not punished for stealing sheep, 
 but in order that sheep may not be stolen." If this 
 were the sole object of punishment, it seems probable 
 that, with the development of the moral consciousness, 
 it would speedily be abolished : for it could scarcely be 
 regarded as just to inflict pain on one man merely for 
 the benefit of others. It would involve treating a man 
 as a thing, as a mere means, not an end in himself. 
 The second view is that the aim of punishment is to 
 educate or reform the offender himself. This appears 
 to be the view that is most commonly taken at the 
 present time ; f because it is the one which seems to 
 fit in best with the humanitarian sentiments of the 
 age. It is evident that this theory could hardly be 
 used to justify the penalty of death ; and many other 
 
 1 Though perhaps it is most often held in conjunction with the 
 preceding view (the deterrent).
 
 6.] MORAL PATHOLOGY. 40$ 
 
 forms of punishment also would have to be regarded 
 from this point of view as ineffective. Indeed it is 
 probable that in many instances kind treatment would 
 have a better effect than punishment. The third view 
 is that the aim of punishment is to allow a man's deed 
 to return on his own head, i. e. to make it apparent 
 that the evil consequences of his act are not merely 
 evils to others, but evils in which he is himself in- 
 volved. ' This is the view of punishment which ap- 
 pears to accord best with the origin of punishment 
 among early peoples : but in later times, especially 
 in Christian countries, there has been a tendency 
 to reject it in favour of one or other of the two pre- 
 ceding theories, because it seems to rest on the 
 unchristian passion of revenge. In this objection, 
 however, there seems to be a misunderstanding in- 
 volved. Revenge is condemned by Christianity on 
 account of the feeling of personal malevolence which 
 is involved in it. But retribution inflicted by a court 
 of justice need not involve any such feeling. Such a 
 court simply accords to a man what he has earned. 
 He has done evil, and it is reasonable that the evil 
 should return upon himself as the wages of his sin 
 the negative value which he has produced. Indeed 
 there would in a sense be an inner self-contradiction 
 in any society which abstained from inflicting pun- 
 ishment upon the guilty. Suppose a society had a 
 law against stealing and yet allowed a thief who 
 was unable to make restitution to escape scot-free. 
 
 1 For an emphatic statement of this view, see Carlyle's Latter* 
 Day Pamphlets, No. z See also Adam Smith's Theory of Moral 
 Sentiment, Part II., sect I., chap. \v.,note, Bradley's Ethical Studie^ 
 Essay I., and Dtihring's Cursus der Philosophic, sect IV., chap. ii.
 
 406 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. vi. 
 
 The laws of such a society would be little more 
 than injunctions or recommendations to its citizens. 
 They would not have the force of imperatives, or 
 at least they would be imperatives which are liable 
 to exceptions. Absolute imperatives must either be 
 able to prevent any violation of their commands, 
 or else must in some way vindicate their author- 
 ity when they are violated. r This seems to be the 
 primary aim of punishment It should be observed 
 however, that this aim in a sense includes the other 
 two. If the aim of punishment is to vindicate the 
 authority of the law, this will be partly done in so far 
 as the offender is reformed, and in so far as similar acts 
 are prevented. And indeed neither reformation nor 
 prevention is likely to be effected by punishment unless 
 it is recognised that the punishment is a vindication of the 
 law i. e. a revelation of the fact that the law holds 
 good although it has been broken, that, in a sense, 
 the breaking of it is a nullity. It is only when an 
 offender sees the punishment of his crime to be the 
 natural or logical outcome of his act that he is likely 
 to be led to any real repentance ; and it is only this 
 recognition also that is likely to lead others to any real 
 abhorrence of crime, as distinct from fear of its con- 
 sequences. We may regard the retributive theory, 
 then, when thus understood, as the most satisfactory 
 of all the theories of punishment* 
 
 1 Cf. above, p. 167, note 2. 
 
 2 A complete discussion of the theory of Punishment must be left 
 to writers on the Philosophy of Law. I have here noticed only those 
 points that seemed most important The most original and sug- 
 gestive treatment of the whole subject is that contained in Hegel's 
 Philosophy of Right, 96-103. Besides the theories above re- 
 ferred to, there are other possible views of Punishment For in
 
 /.] MORAL PATHOLOGY. 40? 
 
 7. RESPONSIBILITY. In considering the subject o! 
 punishment, it is necessary to ascertain to what extent 
 a man is to be regarded as responsible for his actions. 
 The plea of insanity is always held to exempt a man 
 from punishment ; but some thinkers go much further 
 than this. Some hold, in fact, that all crime ought 
 to be regarded as an evidence of insanity, and conse- 
 quently that no one is to be regarded as responsible 
 for his evil deeds. Instead of punishing men for their 
 crimes, therefore, we ought rather to try to cure them 
 of their distempers. 1 This view, of course, rests on the 
 purely determinist conception of human conduct It 
 regards a man's acts not as the outcome of himself but 
 of his circumstances. If the view of freedom which 
 we have already taken is correct, this idea is false. A 
 man's acts, when he is fully aware of what he is doing, 
 are the expression of his own character ; and it is im- 
 possible to go behind this character and fix the blame 
 of it on some one else. 2 The case of insanity is dif- 
 ferent. Here the man is alienated from himself, and 
 his acts are not his own. Of course, we must recog- 
 
 stance, there is the view that a main object of Punishment is to get 
 rid of the offender, so as to prevent him from working further mis- 
 chief. This is a preventive theory in a somewhat different sense 
 from that already referred to under that name. But this view would 
 evident! y nppl y only to some forms of Punishment For an interest- 
 ing treatment of the whole subject, the student may be referred to 
 Green's Collected Works, Vol. II., pp.486 511. Discussions on this 
 subject will also be found in Stephen's Social Rights and Duties 
 and in the International Journal of Ethics, Vol. II., No. I, pp. 2031 
 and 5176, and No. 2, pp. 232-239 ; also Vol. IV., No. 3, pp. 269-284, 
 Vol. V., No. 2, pp. 241-243, VoL VI., No. 4, pp. 479-502, and VoL VII, 
 No, I, pp. 95-4 
 
 1 This is amusingly illustrated in S. Butler's Erewhon. 
 
 C/. above, Book I, chap, iii, especially the Note at the end
 
 408 ETHICS. [BK. in.. CH. VL 
 
 nize in the sane man also a certain part of conduct for 
 which he is not entirely responsible. Ignorance ex 
 cuses much, unless the ignorance is itself culpable. 
 Any condition in which a man is not fully master oi 
 himself removes his responsibility, except when as in 
 drunkenness he can be blamed for the condition in 
 which he is. When an act is done impulsively, also, 
 a man has not the same full responsibility as he has for 
 a deliberate action ; except in so far as he is to be 
 blamed for having habitually lived in a universe in 
 which impulsive acts are possible. E 
 
 8. REMORSE. When an evil deed has been done, 
 and when the wickedness of it has been brought horn* 
 to the actor, it is accompanied by what is known as 
 the pain of conscience. This pain arises from the 
 sense of discord between our deeds and our ideals. 
 It is proportioned, therefore, not to the enormity of 
 our sins, but to the degree of discrepancy between 
 these and our moral aspirations. In the "hardened 
 sinner " it is scarcely felt at all, because he has habitu- 
 ated himself to live within a universe with whose 
 ideals his acts are in perfect harmony. It is only in 
 the rare moments in which he becomes aware of the 
 larger universe beyond, that he is made conscious of 
 any pang- On the other hand, in a sensitive moral 
 nature, habituated to the higher universe of moral 
 purpose, an evil deed is not merely accompanied by a 
 pang of conscience, but, if it is an evil of any con- 
 siderable magnitude, by a recurrent and persistent 
 sense of having fallen from one's proper level. This 
 persistent feeling of degradation is known as remorse. 
 In its deepest form, it is not merely a grief for parti* 
 
 1 On this whole subject, see Aristotle's Ethics, Book III., chap, v
 
 9-] MORAL PATHOLOGY. 409 
 
 cular acts but a sense of degradation in one's whole 
 moral character a sense that one has offended against 
 the highest law, and that one's whole nature is in 
 need of regeneration. The best expression of this in 
 all literature, is, I suppose, that contained in the 5ist 
 Psalm: "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and 
 done this evil in thy sight. . . . Behold, I was shapen 
 in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me," 
 etc. 
 
 9. REFORMATION. The natural effect of remorse T is 
 to lead to a reformation of character. This effect may 
 be prevented by "stifling the conscience," i. e, by per- 
 sistently withdrawing our attention from the higher 
 moral universe and endeavouring to habituate our- 
 selves to a life in a lower one. This endeavour may 
 easily be successful. There is nothing inevitable 
 about the higher point of view. Facilis descensus 
 Averni. But if we do not thus abstract our attention 
 from the voice of conscience, the natural result is that 
 we make an effort to regain the level from which we 
 have fallen, to bring our own actions once more into 
 accordance with the ideals of which we are aware. 
 This rise often requires a certain renewal of our whole 
 nature. It requires a process of conversion like that 
 to which we have already referred. Such a process is 
 brought out in the Psalm which we have already quoted. 
 
 1 Some writers limit the application of the term " remorse " to those 
 cases in which it does not lead to repentance. Sometimes the sense 
 of aberration from the right path is so strong, that a return to it 
 seems impossible, and the mind sinks into absolute despair. But 
 there seems to be no sufficient reason for confining the term to such 
 cases as these. It applies properly to any case in which there is a 
 gnawing pain of Conscience. The word is derived from the Latif 
 remorcUo meaning " to bite again and again."
 
 4io ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. VL 
 
 "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean. . . . 
 Create in me a clean heart. " What is here figuratively 
 referred to is the process of habituating ourselves to a 
 higher universe, involving a transformation of oui 
 whole nature. When such a transformation is effected, 
 it becomes almost impossible to act upon the lower 
 level. Our habits of action become adjusted to the 
 ideal within us, and go on almost without an effort. 
 The will becomes to some extent "holy." Indeed 
 some religious enthusiasts have even thought that 
 such a process of " sanctification " may go so far as to 
 make sin an impossibility. * But this is an exaggera- 
 tion ; "for virtue," as Hamlet says, "cannot so in- 
 oculate our old stock but we shall relish of it." What 
 actually is possible is that we should definitely identify 
 our wills with the highest point of view, and habituate 
 ourselves by degrees to action that is in accordance 
 with this. In this way we may asymptotically ap- 
 proximate to a state of perfect holiness of will. 
 
 10. FORGIVENESS. The place of punishment has 
 been indicated as the recoil of guilt upon the offender, 
 thereby asserting the majesty of law, and leading on, 
 through this, to repentance and reformation. In this 
 way "the wheel comes full circle": the crime is 
 wiped out i. e. its essential nullity is exhibited 
 within the universe occupied by the criminal. It 
 is possible, however, that this revolution may be 
 effected without the intervention of punishment. The 
 guilt may be brought home to the mind, not by the 
 working of it out within the universe in which it has 
 
 1 Cf. First Epistle of John, chap, ill, 9. : " Whosoever is born of 
 God doth not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him; and ho 
 cannot sin, because he is born of God"
 
 11.] MORAL PATHOLOGY. 411 
 
 arisen, but by rising to a higher universe. Education, 
 for instance, may bring about this result. Modern 
 humanitarian sentiment leads us, as far as possible, to 
 seek to deal with criminals especially young criminals 
 in this way, rather than by way of punishment. 
 Where this is possible, the offence can be forgiven, be- 
 cause it no longer exists at the higher point of view. 
 It must be remembered, however, that to say this is 
 not to deny the validity of the preceding account of 
 punishment.* 
 
 11. SOCIAL CORRUPTION. So far we have been look- 
 ing at moral evil only as it appears in the individual 
 life. But a society, as well as an individual, may have 
 moral excellence or defect. It may have its customs 
 and its institutions so framed as to give encourage- 
 ment to its citizens at every turn to live at the highest 
 human level ; or it may have them so devised as to 
 obstruct the moral life and make virtue, in certain 
 aspects, almost an impossibility.* Civilization ought 
 to mean the arrangement of social conditions so as to 
 make virtue as easy and vice as difficult as possible. 
 But civilization, as it actually exists, is partly a product 
 of the vices as well as of the virtues of mankind ; and 
 is adapted to the former as well as to the latter. It is 
 not arranged for the extinction of vice, but at most, in 
 Burke's language, that vice may " lose half its evil by 
 losing all its grossness." It is arranged not for the 
 promotion of virtue but only of respectability. Heroic 
 
 1 Some highly suggestive remarks on the relation between Pun- 
 ishment and Forgiveness will be found in Caird's Hegel, pp. 28-30. 
 
 * Mr. Muirhead enumerates, as illustrations of such institutions 
 (Elements of Ethics, p. 174), " brothels, gambling dens, cribs, and 
 cramming establishments."
 
 412 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. VL 
 
 virtue is in many ways made difficult rather than easy. 1 
 Among the rich luxury is encouraged. Wants are 
 multiplied, and go on multiplying themselves, and 
 men are tempted to seek the satisfaction of them by 
 dishonourable means. The poor, on the other hand, 
 are exploited i. e. used as a mere means for the ad- 
 vantage of others. They have no leisure for culture 
 and are exposed to many temptations. When a nation 
 has reached such a stage as this, it often declines and 
 falls. Indeed it must do so, unless it is reawakened 
 by a reformer, such as in our own time Carlyle and 
 Ruskin. Sometimes also it is saved by a revolution ; 
 but this generally involves almost as much moral evil 
 as the corrupt state of society itself. Sometimes, again, 
 a nation wanders so far from the ways of righteousness 
 that other nations feel justified in stepping in for its 
 punishment. It is in such cases that an offensive war- 
 fare seems to be justified. But it is seldom that one 
 nation is thus entitled to make itself the judge of an- 
 other. The Jews seem to have regarded themselves 
 in this way in ancient times. In modern times, as a 
 general rule, only a combination of nations could feel 
 themselves to represent the side of right reason against 
 the corruptions of some particular society.' 
 
 1 See Carlyle's view on this point in his Essay on " The Opera. * 
 * This chapter is of course concerned only with the ethical aspect 
 of moral pathology. For other aspects see the interesting books by 
 Mr. W. D. Morrison on Juvenile Offenders and Crime and its Causes ; 
 also Enrico Ferri's Criminal Sociology, Maudsley's Body and Mind, 
 and other works on morbid psychology, criminology, &c
 
 I X.] MORAL PROGRESS. 413 
 
 CHAPTER Vlt 
 
 MORAL PROGRESS. 
 
 f 1. SOCIAL EVOLUTION. Although we have frequently 
 referred, throughout the preceding chapters, to the fact 
 that the moral life is to be regarded as a process of 
 development, yet our treatment of it has been to a 
 large extent statical. What has been said, however, in 
 the closing paragraphs of the last two chapters, with 
 reference to the work of the moral reformer, seems to 
 lead us naturally to a more explicit consideration of 
 the conditions of moral development. That there is a 
 certain "increasing purpose through the ages," is a 
 truth that is now in some form generally admitted, 
 however much we may be tempted at times to doubt it. 
 This is on the whole an entirely modern conception, and 
 is somewhat contrary to the impressions of the natural 
 man. It is not only to the graceful pessimism of a 
 Horace that the present generation seems a degenerate 
 offspring of heroic sires. The idea of a Golden Age 
 behind us, of the "good old times," when men were 
 uncorrupted by the luxuries and follies of a later age, 
 of the "wisdom of our ancestors," when men looked 
 at the world with a fresher and deeper glance, has a 
 certain natural fascination for the discontented spirit 
 of man. Nor is it entirely without a basis in fact. If 
 "new occasions bring new duties," they also bring 
 new opportunities for vice. Looking, for instance, at
 
 4H ETHICS. [BK. III M CH. VIL 
 
 the commercial morality of the present time, and com 
 paring it with the practices of more primitive peoples, 
 we have often a difficulty in determining whether, in 
 the root of the matter, we have advanced or receded. 
 If in some respects our actions seem more trustworthy 
 and based on broader and more reasonable principles, 
 in other respects we seem to have grown more selfish 
 and dishonest than men ever were before. 1 It is only 
 when we pass from the actions of individual human 
 beings to the consideration of the principles on which 
 men are expected to act the codes of duty and ideals 
 of virtue which have grown up among us that we 
 gain any firm assurance of progress. When we reflect, 
 however, that those higher conceptions of conduct 
 which prevail among us could scarcely hold their 
 ground if there were not some individuals who habitu- 
 ally acted in accordance with them, we may be led to 
 believe that even in the individual life there must on 
 the whole have been a certain advancement And, 
 indeed, this conviction ought to be rather strengthened 
 than otherwise by the recognition that, in our modern 
 system of life, there are depths of degradation which 
 to a ruder state of existence are scarcely known. 
 Corruptio optimi pessima. The grass, as Mr. Ruskin 
 somewhere remarks, is green every year : it is only the 
 wheat that, on account of its higher nature, is liable 
 to a blight So, too, a mere animal is incapable of such 
 a fall as we find in man. As Walt Whitman says, 
 
 " They do not sweat and whine about their condition. 
 They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins, 
 They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God ; 
 Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented 
 
 Cf. Marshall's Principles oj Economics, pjx 6-8 and 361.
 
 I.] MORAL PROGRESS. 41$ 
 
 With the mania of owning things ; 
 
 Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands 
 
 of years ago ; 
 Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth." 
 
 All this is, no doubt, very creditable to the lower 
 animals ; yet it need not induce us to envy their con- 
 dition. Man's relative un happiness, as Carlyle says, 
 is due to his greatness. "The assertion of our weak- 
 ness and deficiency," as Emerson puts it, "is the fine 
 innuendo by which the soul makes its enormous 
 claim." "A spark disturbs our clod ;" and this dis- 
 turbance brings with it the possibility of new forms of 
 evil. Animals are not capable of the higher forms of 
 sin. " The advantages which I envy in my neighbour, 
 the favour of society or of a particular person which I 
 lose and he wins and which makes me jealous of him, 
 the superiority in form or power or place of which the 
 imagination excites my ambition these would have 
 no more existence for an agent not self-conscious, 
 or not dealing with other self-conscious agents, than 
 colour has for the blind." 1 So it is also, in some 
 measure, with the growth of civilization. Knowledge 
 is power for evil as well as for good. The depth of 
 our Hell measures the height of our Heaven ; and when 
 we are conscious of special degradation and misery 
 in the midst of a high civilization, we may reflect, with 
 Milton's Satan, "No wonder, fallen such a pernicious 
 height" There seems, therefore, to be no real reason 
 
 * Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, p. 131. It should, however, in 
 fairness be noted, that practically all the evils here alluded to are 
 to be found in a rudimentary form even among the lower animals. 
 What is peculiar to man is not so much the presence of new forms 
 of evil as the clear consciousness that they are evil, and the conse- 
 quent degradation in yielding to them. Still, it is also true that 
 civilization creates more subtle forms of evil
 
 416 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. VIL 
 
 for doubting that in the general improvement of the 
 conditions of life there is also a certain moral advance. 1 
 To the consideration of this advance we may now 
 appropriately devote a few paragraphs. 
 
 2. THE MORAL UNIVERSE. We have seen already 
 that the moral life of an individual is lived within what 
 may be described as a social or moral universe. Such 
 a universe is constituted by various elements. It con- 
 sists, on the one hand, of a moral ideal, generally 
 recognized by the society in which the individual lives. 
 This ideal may be expressed in a code of command- 
 ments, in a series of injunctions, or in the form of a 
 life which is set up as a model for our imitation. This 
 is the ideal side of our moral universe. On the other 
 hand, it consists of definite social institutions, such as 
 we have referred to in Chapter II. Finally, it consists 
 of certain habitual modes of action, acquired rather by 
 half-unconscious imitation than by any distinct injunc- 
 tions or efforts to copy an ideal pattern. In any given 
 age and country these three elements of a social 
 universe will nearly always be found in some more or 
 less fully developed form ; but often there is a very 
 considerable divergence between the three. A people's 
 ideal does not always bear a close resemblance to its 
 
 i Even Carlyle partly admits this. See his Heroes and Hero-Wor- 
 thip, Led IV. " I do not make mnch of ' Progress of the Species' 
 as handled in these times of ours. . . . Yet I may say, the fact itself 
 seems certain enough. . . . No man whatever believes, or can believe, 
 exactly what his grandfather believed : he enlarges somewhat, by 
 fresh discovery, his view of the Universe ; and consequently hii 
 Theorem of the Universe. ... It is the history of every man ; and in 
 the history of mankind we see it summed np into great historical 
 amounts revolutions, new epochs. ... So with all beliefs whatso- 
 ever in this world all Systems of belief and Systems of Practice thai
 
 3-] MORAL PROGRESS. 417 
 
 Institutions or its habits ; and sometimes even its habits 
 are not entirely conformable to its institutions. A 
 religion of peace and good-will has been found not 
 incompatible with the thumb-screw and the torpedo ; 
 and the existence of the monogamic family is not 
 always a guarantee of social purity. A large part of 
 the moral development of peoples consists in the effort 
 to adjust these three elements to one another; though 
 it also partly consists in the effort to elevate their ideas, 
 and improve their institutions and habits. 
 
 3. INNER CONTRADICTION IN OUR UNIVERSE. The 
 mere want of adjustment between the various elements 
 in our moral universe is often of itself sufficient to 
 suggest the need of a new ideal or of new institutions. 
 Institutions to which men's habits cannot be adapted are 
 soon felt to be unsatisfactory, and have to be abolished. 
 This was largely true, for instance, of the institution of 
 celibacy among the clergy in the middle ages. So, 
 again, if our institutions and habits are in contradiction 
 with our ideal, this will sometimes be the means of 
 enabling us to see that our ideal is too narrow. The 
 early Christian ideal has been in this way expanded by 
 the absorption of elements derived from the Greeks 
 and other pagan peoples. On the other hand, our 
 habits may become gradually reformed, so as to adapt 
 themselves to the institutions among which we live ; 
 and our institutions may gradually be adjusted to our 
 ideals. This is perhaps the more normal course of the 
 two. Sometimes there is a crisis in a people's life, in 
 which the question arises, whether the institutions are 
 to be revolutionized or men's habits reformed. There 
 seems to be such a crisis, for instance, at the present 
 
 time with regard to our industrial system. 
 
 Eth. 97
 
 418 ETHICS. [BK. in., en. vn. 
 
 4. SENSE OF INCOMPLETENESS. Even apart, how- 
 ever, from those contradictions within our universe 
 which drive us forward by a kind of natural dialectic, 
 there is also a tendency to progress in our habits, 
 institutions, and ideals, due simply to our conscious- 
 ness of their incompleteness. This incompleteness is 
 often first brought to clear consciousness by some 
 reformer who points out a certain want of logic in our 
 present system. Such a reformer points out, for in- 
 stance, that we habitually act in one way under certain 
 circumstances, but in quite an opposite way under 
 other circumstances, when there is no sufficient rea- 
 son to account for the difference. He may point out 
 inconsistencies, for instance, in the way in which men 
 commonly treat their children, being sometimes cruel 
 and sometimes over-indulgent. Or he may point out 
 the difference between the morality recognized in the 
 relations between countries in their negotiations with 
 one another and that recognized in the relations 
 between individuals, and may ask whether there is any 
 adequate reason for this contrast Or he may point to 
 the pains inflicted on animals in certain processes of 
 vivisection, or in various forms of the chase, or in 
 slaughter-houses, or even in the ordinary use of animals 
 as instruments of human service ; he may contrast this 
 with the treatment accorded to human beings ; and 
 may ask whether, seeing that in respect of the suffering 
 of pain there appears to be no distinction between men 
 and animals, there is any sufficient reason for tolerating 
 in the case of animals what would not be tolerated in 
 the case of men. Or, again, he may turn to the 
 institutions of social life, as distinguished from its habits, 
 and may call attention to anomalies in the govern-
 
 5.] MORAL PROGRESS. 419 
 
 ment of the country, in the regulation of family life, 
 in the methods of industnal action, and in the various 
 other organized forms in which the life of the com- 
 munity is carried on. He may thus criticise these 
 institutions by means of themselves, showing that the 
 principles underlying them are incompletely carried 
 out. He may ask, for instance, upon what recognized 
 principle women are excluded from certain functions 
 and privileges which are universally open to men. 
 Finally, such a reformer, carrying his weapon of 
 criticism still higher, may attack our ideals themselves. 
 He may ask whether we are quite consistent in our 
 ideas of what constitutes the highest kind of life. Is 
 there not a certain narrowness about them? Do we 
 not apply principles in one direction which we omit to 
 extend in another? If wo attach so much importance 
 to the tithing of mint and cummin, should we not be 
 at least equally careful about some other weightier 
 matters of the law ? If the ideal man should be brave 
 in battle and temperate in his food and drink, should 
 he not also show fortitude under disaster and self- 
 restraint in power? Such questions lead r to an 
 extension of the conception of our duties and of the 
 virtues which we ought to cultivate ; and this aspect 
 of moral development is so important that it may be 
 well to consider it a little more fully. 
 
 5. DEEPENING OF SPIRITUAL LIFE. There is no re- 
 spect in which moral progress can be more clearly 
 seen than in the deepening views which men are led 
 to take of the nature of the virtues and of the duties 
 
 1 Through the force of persuasion. It is here that Mr. Alexander's 
 view of " Natural Selection in Morals " is in place. See above, pp. 
 
 trot*
 
 420 ETHICS. [BK. IIL, CH. vn. 
 
 that are required of them. This has been illustrated 
 in a most masterly manner by Green in that part of his 
 Prolegomena to Ethics ' in which he contrasts the Greek 
 with the modern conceptions of virtue perhaps the 
 most original and suggestive chapter in the whole of 
 that great work. He takes up the two most prominent 
 of the personal virtues recognized by the Greeks, 
 courage and temperance,* and shows how in modern 
 times both the range of their application has been ex- 
 tended and the conception of the principle on which 
 they rest deepened. With regard to temperance, for 
 instance, he observes that the Greeks limited the ap- 
 plication of this virtue to questions of food and drink 
 and sexual intercourse ; whereas, in modern times, 
 we apply it to various other forms of self-denial. He 
 urges, moreover, that even with regard to those parti- 
 cular forms of self-indulgence which the Greeks recog- 
 nized as vicious, the principles on which they rested 
 the claim for self-denial were not so deep as ours. 
 
 " We present to ourselves, "as he says,J " the objects 
 of moral loyalty which we should be ashamed to for- 
 sake for our pleasures, in a far greater variety of forms 
 than did the Greek, and it is a much larger self-denial 
 which loyalty to these objects demands of us. It is 
 no longer the State alone that represents to us the 
 melior natura before whose claims our animal inclina- 
 tions sink abashed. Other forms of association put 
 restraints and make demands on us which the Greek 
 knew not. An indulgence, which a man would other- 
 wise allow himself, he foregoes in consideration of 
 
 * Book IIL, chap. v. 
 
 C/. also Muirhead's Elements oj Ethict, pp. 325 &
 
 5.] MORAL PROGRESS. 42 I 
 
 claims on the part of wife or children, of men as such 
 or women as such, of fellow-Christians or fellow-work- 
 men, which could not have been made intelligible in 
 the ancient world. ... It is certain that the require- 
 ments founded on ideas of common good, which in 
 our consciences we recognize as calling for the surrender 
 of our inclinations to pleasure, are more far-reaching 
 and penetrate life more deeply than did such require- 
 ments in the ancient world, and that in consequence 
 a more complete self-denial is demanded of us." And 
 Green goes on to add that even in respect of those 
 aspects of life in which the Greeks did recognize the 
 virtue of self-denial, their recognition is less complete 
 and far-reaching than that of the moral consciousness 
 in our own time. This is especially true with regard 
 to self-denial in matters of sexual indulgence. And 
 the change which has thus taken place in our moral 
 consciousness does not mean merely that we have ex- 
 tended the range within which certain virtues are ap- 
 plicable. It involves also a deepening of our concep- 
 tion of the principles on which the virtue rests. " The 
 principles from which it was derived " * by the Greek 
 moralists, "so far as they were practically available 
 and tenable, seem to have been twofold. One was 
 that all indulgence should be avoided which unfitted a 
 man for the discharge of his duties in peace or war; 
 the other, that such a check should be kept on the lusts 
 of the flesh as might prevent them from issuing in what 
 a Greik knew as ufipts a kind of self-assertion and 
 aggression upon the rights of others in respect of person 
 and property, for which we have not an equivalent 
 name, but which was looked upon as the antithesis of 
 i Loc. di, p. 285
 
 422 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. 
 
 the civil spirit" Another prevalent notion among 
 Greek philosophers was " that the kind of pleasure with 
 which temperance has to do is in some way unworthy 
 of man, because one of which the other animals are 
 susceptible." "Society was not in a state in which 
 the principle that humanity in the person of every one 
 is to be treated always as an end, never merely as a 
 means, could be apprehended in its full universality ; 
 and it is this principle alone, however it may be stated, 
 which affords a rational ground for the obligation to 
 chastity as we understand it The society of modern 
 Christendom, it is needless to say, is far enough from 
 acting upon it, but in its conscience it recognizes the 
 principle as it was not recognized in the ancient world. 
 The legal investment of every one with personal rights 
 makes it impossible for one whose mind is open to the 
 claims of others to ignore the wrong of treating a woman 
 as the servant of his pleasures at the cost of her own de- 
 gradation. Though the wrong is still habitually done, 
 it is done under a rebuke of conscience to which a 
 Greek of Aristotle's time, with most women about him 
 in slavery, and without even the capacity (to judge 
 from the writings of the philosophers) for an ideal of 
 society in which this should be otherwise, could not 
 have been sensible. The sensibility could only arise 
 in sequence upon that change in the actual structure of 
 society through which the human person, as such, with- 
 out distinction of sex, became the subject of rights." 
 Thus we have here, not merely an extension of the 
 range of the virtue, but also a deeper conception of 
 the principle upon which it rests. And the same truth 
 might be illustrated in the case of other virtues, Th
 
 6.] MORAL PROGRESS. 423 
 
 principle of the virtues, in fact, becomes universalized, 
 and ceases to attach itself simply to this or that particular 
 mode of manifestation. And along with this universa- 
 lization there comes a deeper consciousness of the in- 
 wardness of the virtuous life. So long as the virtues 
 are connected only with particular modes of manifesta- 
 tion in social life (e. g. courage with the activities of 
 war), they seem to be little more than outer facts. 
 When, on the other hand, we see that the essence of 
 the virtues consists in the application of a certain prin- 
 ciple, whatever may be the sphere in which it is ap- 
 plied, we recognize at the same time that their essence 
 lies rather in the attitude of the individual heart than 
 in the particular forms of outward action. It is true 
 that the Greeks were by no means ignorant of this 
 essentially inward character of the virtues. They 
 knew i. e. their best thinkers knew that the virtues 
 are not virtues at all unless they are accompanied with 
 purity of heart and will, unless they are done TOO xalolj 
 f-vexa, for the sake of what is beautiful or noble. But 
 the recognition of this has been very much deepened f 
 by the growth of a clearer consciousness of the uni- 
 versality of the principles on which the virtues rest. 
 
 6. NEW OBLIGATIONS. In the preceding section we 
 have seen that the deepening of the conception of the 
 principle on which the virtues rest is accompanied by 
 an extension of the sphere of their application. The 
 expansion of our ideas of obligation which takes place 
 V this way is of a comparatively simple kind. We 
 
 * It seems to me that Green somewhat exaggerates the unity 
 of sentiment on this point in the Greek and Christian moral con- 
 Bciousness, Ibid., p. 271 seq. t p. 288, &c, But no doubt there is greater 
 danger in unduly emphasizing the divergence between them.
 
 424 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. 
 
 learn to recognize that what applies to the Greek ap- 
 plies equally to the Barbarian, that what applies to the 
 Jew applies equally to the Gentile, that what applies 
 to men applies equally to women. But along with 
 this expansion there is another of a less simple kind, 
 by which we become aware of obligations that present 
 themselves to our minds as new rather than as mere 
 extensions of the old ones. Thus, when the Christian 
 conception of man's nature and destiny was intro- 
 duced, it seemed to bring with it an obligation of pro- 
 pagandism which had not been felt in the same way 
 before. The recognition of the infinite issues at stake 
 Jn the moral regeneration of mankind, and of the in- 
 terest in these issues which belongs to every individ- 
 ual soul, rendered it an imperative obligation on those 
 who accepted the Christian doctrine to endeavour, to 
 the utmost of their power, to "preach the Gospel to 
 every creature." On the other hand, the knowledge 
 which has been subsequently acquired of the gradual 
 way in which the moral nature develops, has modified 
 the obligation of preaching, and transformed it into 
 the obligation to make intellectual and moral education 
 universally accessible. Again, the knowledge that has 
 recently been acquired of the relation between men 
 and animals has led to a transformation of our view 
 with regard to the way in which the latter ought to 
 be treated. It would be going somewhat too far to 
 describe this transformation by saying that we have 
 extended to the lower animals the same conception of 
 rights and obligations as we apply to men. In the 
 case of some of the lower animals any such extension 
 would be generally regarded as absurd ; and even with 
 respect to the highest of them, unless we allow that
 
 6.] MORAL PROGRESS. 42$ 
 
 they are self-conscious, rational beings, with a moral 
 life like that of man (which even their best friends 
 scarcely claim for them), we cannot acknowledge that 
 they possess rights, in any strict interpretation of the 
 term. All that we seem entitled to say is, that we 
 have begun to recognize that the animal consciousness 
 has a certain kinship with our own, that we can dis- 
 cover in it traces of feelings, perceptions, and instincts 
 that appear to be on the way towards the development 
 of a moral life, and that consequently we feel bound 
 to treat the animals, at least in their higher forms, in 
 a way that is semi-human in a way approximating 
 to that in which we treat children, in whom also the 
 moral consciousness, to which rights attach, is not 
 fully developed. 1 But the acknowledgment of our 
 relationship has, in recent times, extended even further 
 than this. Even with inanimate nature we have be- 
 gun to recognize a certain kinship ; and this has given 
 rise in some minds to a more or less vague sentiment 
 that even natural scenery possesses a certain quasi- 
 right to exist, and ought not to be wantonly outraged. 
 In noticing such extensions of our obligations as 
 these, it ought not to be denied that there are also 
 some obligations of which we are apt to lose the con- 
 sciousness. Thus, it has often been pointed out that, 
 in more primitive times, the consciousness of the 
 mutual obligations of master and servant was much 
 stronger than it is now. This must be fully admitted. 
 At the same time it should be remembered that this 
 
 1 1 need hardly say that I do not intend this passage to be taken 
 as a complete discussion of this difficult questioa The quasi-rights 
 of children, for instance, must differ widely from those of the lower 
 animals, inasmuch as the former are actually on the way to become 
 rational, whereas the latter are not
 
 426 ETHICS. [BK. in., CH. vit 
 
 partial obliteration of the consciousness of a duty is 
 partly due to an extension of the sphere within which 
 our obligations hold. The intensity of the personal 
 relationship between master and servant (which, how- 
 ever, is often greatly exaggerated) was due in part to 
 the fact that no human obligation was acknowledged 
 except what was due to that particular relationship. 
 The servant was supposed to owe a debt of gratitude 
 to his master for the protection and patronage vouch- 
 safed to him. r The obligation recognized on the side 
 of the master was, I am afraid, generally of a much 
 vaguer character. Now, on the other hand, we recog- 
 nize the obligation of man to man, as such, independ- 
 ently of any special relationships. That this recogni- 
 tion of a wider sphere of duty has practically weakened 
 the narrower ties, seems to be partly true. It is 
 always more difficult to act up to the requirements of 
 a large obligation than to those of a small one. But 
 this ought not to prevent us from perceiving that there 
 has been a great extension of the sphere of acknow- 
 ledged duty. 
 
 7. MORAL CHANGE AND CHANGE OF ENVIRONMENT. 
 The question is sometimes raised a whether the exten- 
 sion which thus takes place in our view of moral 
 obligation is in reality due to a development of our 
 moral consciousness, or only to a change in our en- 
 vironment. Thus, it may be urged that the emancipa- 
 tion of slaves 3 in modern times may be accounted for 
 by the general development of our industrial methods; 
 
 i Cj. Buckle's History of Civilization , VoL III., p. 325. See alao 
 above, pp. 304, note i, and 346, note I. 
 
 * Cf. Muirhead's Elements of Ethics,, p. 229 seq. 
 
 Cf. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book IIL, chap. ii.
 
 7,] MORAL PROGRESS. 427 
 
 and it may be suggested that the attempt to rest the 
 movement in this direction on general considerations 
 of the rights of men is merely an illustration of the 
 cant and hypocrisy of the modern age. Now it seems 
 clear that the general recognition of the possibility of 
 abolishing slavery (which Aristotle could not acknow- 
 ledge), and with this the recognition of the duty of 
 actually abolishing it, was really due to the develop- 
 ment of economic conditions. And a similar remark 
 would apply in most other cases in which an extension 
 of recognized obligations occurs. It is so, for instance, 
 also with the movement towards the emancipation of 
 women. New industrial conditions have pushed for- 
 ward the demand for it. But this fact need not in any 
 way stumble us, or make us hesitate the more to be- 
 lieve that there is a moral advance. Doubtless the 
 moral life does not grow up in vacuo. It is relative 
 throughout to the environment in which it is nurtured. 
 It grows by the increase of our knowledge, by the in- 
 crease of our power, by the increase of the possibilities 
 of our action. The moral life is thus constantly being 
 determined anew by the new conditions and combina- 
 tions presented for solution, and by the new directions 
 in which possible solutions appear. * But its growth is 
 not therefore the less real. Those who know anything 
 of the spirit in which the emancipation of the slaves 
 was carried out, must be well aware that, however 
 true it may be that industrial conditions made it pos- 
 sible, that industrial conditions first brought it to men's 
 minds, and first won for it a general acceptance, how- 
 
 * The spirit of man " makes contemporary life the object on which 
 it acts ; itself being the infinite impulse of activity to alter its forma." 
 Hegel's Philosophy of History (English translation), p. 215.
 
 428 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. VII. 
 
 ever true it may even be that commercial and merely 
 political motives weighed most strongly with the rank 
 and file of those who fought for its accomplishment, 
 yet the inspiration of the great leaders of the move- 
 ment, without which the necessary self-sacrifice would 
 never have been undergone, was at bottom purely 
 moral. Mere external changes may bring the need of 
 a moral reform to light ; but it is only in so far as they 
 thus serve to awaken a moral consciousness that the 
 world is moved by them. 
 
 8. THE IDEAL UNIVERSE. The fact of moral progress 
 causes it to be not entirely true that the good man, 
 and especially the moral genius (who is generally at 
 the same time a moral reformer), lives within a uni- 
 verse constituted by actually existing habits and in- 
 stitutions, or even by ideals that are definitely acknow- 
 ledged at a given time and place. What is said of 
 Abraham may be applied to the moral life generally. 
 " By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out 
 into a place which he should after receive for an in- 
 heritance, obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing 
 whither he went. . . . For he looked for a city which 
 hath foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God." 
 The spirit of man, in its moral growth, looks continu- 
 ally for such a city. It is continually " moving about 
 in worlds not realized." It is dissatisfied with the 
 habits and institutions actually established at any time 
 and place, and even with the ideals that are customa- 
 rily recognized, and presses forward towards a form of 
 life that shall be more complete, consistent, and satis- 
 fying. 1 Hence the perennial interest of Utopias and 
 
 1 " That which gives life its keynote is, not what men think good, 
 but what they think best True, this is not the part of belief which
 
 8.] MORAL PROGRESS. 429 
 
 poetic dreams and anticipations of better modes of 
 existence. The danger, in such dreams and anticipa- 
 tions, is that they are apt to represent only a partial 
 and abstract phase in the development of life, and to 
 involve some loss of hold upon its concrete content. 
 In this sense, there is some truth in the saying that 
 the world as a whole is wiser than its wisest men. 
 The fresh intuitions of the prophets, who are as 
 strangers and pilgrims on the earth, require to be re- 
 interpreted in the light of the practical good sense of 
 those who are at home on it. The prophetic seer is 
 sometimes apt to be blinded by his own light, so that 
 the rest of the world seems to him darkness. Hence 
 the melancholy which Carlyle regarded as at the basis 
 
 is embodied in conduct : the ordinary man tries to avoid only what 
 is obviously wrong ; the best of men does not always make us 
 aware that he is striving after what is right We do not see people 
 growing into the resemblance of what they admire ; it is much if 
 we can see them growing into the unlikeness of that which they 
 condemn. But the dominant influence of life lies ever in the un- 
 realized. While all that we discern is the negative aspect of a 
 man's ideal, that ideal itself lives by admiration which never clothes 
 itself in word or deed. In seeing what he avoids we judge only 
 the least important part of his standard ; it is that which he never 
 strives to realize in his own person which makes him what he is. 
 The average, secular man of to-day is a different being because 
 Christendom has hallowed the precept to give the cloak to him 
 who asks the coat ; it would be easier to argue that this claim for 
 what most would call an impossible virtue has been injurious than 
 that it has been impotent. Christianity has moulded character 
 where we should vainly seek to discern that it has influenced con- 
 duct Not the criminal code, but the counsel of perfection shows us 
 what a nation is becoming; and he who casts on any set of duties 
 the shadow of the second best, so far as he is successful, does more 
 to influence the moral ideal than he who succeeds in passing anew 
 law." These suggestive, and even profound remarks are taken 
 from Miss Wedgwood's work on The Moral Ideal (p. 373). Th* 
 italics are mine.
 
 430 ETHICS. [BK. III., CH. VIL 
 
 of all true insight the pessimism and despair which 
 cloud the consciousness, so long as it sees only the 
 imperfection and incompleteness of all actual achieve- 
 ment in the moral life, in contrast with the partial 
 Pisgah-sight of something better to be attained ; and 
 does not yet perceive, what is often the deeper truth, 
 that the germs of the better are already at work in the 
 partly good, and may even be contained in what pre- 
 sents itself at first as simply bad. 
 
 r fhe recognition, however, of this moral faith, this 
 presence of the consciousness of an unattained and even 
 unformulated ideal, leads us at once into the region of 
 poetry and religion, which in a manner transcend 
 morality. The consideration of these would carry us 
 beyond our present subject ; but we may conclude 
 with a chapter on the relationship between Ethics and 
 Metaphysics, in which the place of religion will be in- 
 cidentally referred to. 1 
 
 1 The whole subject of the present chanter is most admirably 
 treated in M airhead's Elements oj Lthics, iiook V.
 
 I.] ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 43 l 
 
 CONCLUDING CHAPTER. 
 
 ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 
 
 1. GENERAL REMARKS. It must be evident to the 
 discerning reader that, in what has gone before, we 
 have occasionally been skating on rather thin ice. The 
 ultimate questions to which we have been led have 
 not received any quite satisfactory solution. We have 
 perhaps seen the insufficiency of all other theories of 
 Ethics more fully than we have seen the sufficiency of 
 that which we have been led to adopt. The truth is 
 that the theory of Ethics which seems most satisfactory 
 has a metaphysical basis, and without the considera- 
 tion of that basis there can be no thorough understand- 
 ing of it. If we could have satisfied ourselves with a 
 Hedonistic theory, a psychological basis might perhaps 
 have sufficed. On the other hand, if one of the current 
 evolution theories could be accepted, we might look 
 for our basis in the study of biology. But if we rest 
 our view of Ethics on the idea of the development of 
 the ideal self or of the rational universe, the significance 
 of this cannot be made fully apparent without a meta- 
 physical examination of the nature of the self; nor can 
 its validity be established except by a discussion of the 
 reality of the rational universe. Some further exami- 
 nation of this point seems now to be demanded. 
 
 2, VALIDITY OF THE IDEAL, The general result of
 
 43 2 ETHICS. [CONCLUDING CH. 
 
 our inquiry may be summed up as follows. We have 
 seen that the moral consciousness presents itself first 
 of all in the form of law, a supreme command or cate- 
 gorical imperative imposed on the will of the individual. 
 Hence, when reflection begins on the nature of morality, 
 the first theory which presents itself is one that con- 
 ceives of it as an absolute law of Duty. But this 
 breaks down, because, as we have seen, when this 
 idea is carefully analyzed, it is found to yield no con- 
 tent. The next form in which the idea of morality 
 presents itself is that of the Good ; and this is naturally 
 thought of at first simply as that which satisfies desire, 
 *. e. as the pleasant. But the pleasant is formless, just 
 as the law of Duty is empty ; and we are thus led to look 
 for a more adequate conception of the Good. This is 
 found in the idea of the complete realization of the 
 essential nature of mankind. But in order to under- 
 stand this, it is necessary to study the nature of man- 
 kind in its concrete development. Accordingly, we 
 have been led to notice, in a brief and summary fashion, 
 the ways in which the realization of humanity may 
 be regarded as accomplishing itself through the various 
 institutions of social life, through the duties and virtues 
 which grow up in connection with these, through the 
 growth of the inner life of the individual, and through 
 the progressive development of human history. 
 Through these various activities mankind may be seen 
 to be gradually attaining to that complete rationality 
 which can only be reached through the complete 
 grasping of the world of experience, and bringing it 
 into intelligible relationship to ourselves. This process 
 cannot be seen to complete itself within the actual 
 moral life of mankind : and the ideal involved in the
 
 3-] ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 433 
 
 moral life is consequently unfulfilled. Life remains at 
 the best incomplete a noble work, it may be, but a 
 torso. Now this incompleteness in the concrete reali- 
 zation of the moral ideal brings with it the further de- 
 fect that the validity of the moral ideal is not fully 
 made apparent in the course of its concrete realization. 
 If mankind could be supposed actually to attain that 
 complete development of human faculty, that complete 
 bringing of the world into intelligible and harmonious 
 relationship to the human consciousness, at which we 
 may be said to aim, the result would no doubt be seen 
 to be so satisfying in itself that it would be impossible 
 to question the validity of the ideal as an object of 
 human effort. But this complete justification is not 
 possible so long as the process is not fully worked out. 
 Now it is this insufficiency in the moral life that leads 
 us to the point of view of religion ; and perhaps some 
 consideration of the latter may enable us to see more 
 clearly the nature of the ultimate problem which is in- 
 volved in the moral consciousness. 
 
 3. MORALITY AND RELIGION. Matthew Arnold, as 
 is well known, defined religion as "morality touched 
 with emotion." "This," remarks Mr. Muirhead, 1 
 "does not carry us far. Emotion is not a distinctive 
 mark of religious conduct. All conduct . . . is touched 
 with emotion, otherwise it would not be conduct at 
 all." This criticism is perhaps not entirely fair. All 
 conduct is in a sense touched with emotion /'. e. it 
 involves an element of feeling. So does all conscious 
 life. But this need not prevent us from distinguishing 
 between emotional and unemotional acts and states. 
 In ordinary life the element of feeling is to all intents 
 
 i Elements o/Etitics, p. i8a 
 Eth
 
 434 ETHICS. [CONCLUDING CH. 
 
 In abeyance. It influences us quietly, but does not 
 rise into prominence. We do what is in harmony with 
 our habits and convictions ; we shun what is in dis- 
 cord with them : but our attention is not specially 
 directed to the agreeableness of the one or the disagree- 
 ableness of the other. The one does not thrill us, and 
 the other does not jar upon us or shock us. This is 
 the case so long as we are living steadily within the 
 universe to which we have become habituated. And 
 we are so living throughout the greater part of that 
 conduct which we describe as moral. Even the saint 
 or hero may perform saintly or heroic acts with no 
 consciousness that he is doing anything particular, 
 and consequently with no sense either of harmony 
 disturbed or of harmony restored. The more entirely 
 he is absorbed in his work, the more likely is this to 
 be the case. Still more is it the case that the "good 
 neighbour" and the "honest citizen" go about their 
 avocations, for the most part, with no particular stir- 
 rings of the breast. On the other hand, Matthew 
 Arnold was probably so far in the right, that the reli- 
 gious attitude, as distinguished from the simply moral, 
 is at least generally characterized (as is also the artistic) 
 by a more or less distinctly marked emotion. Still, I 
 agree with Mr. Muirhead in thinking that Matthew 
 Arnold's definition is inadequate, and this for more 
 reasons than one. 
 
 In the first place, although it seems an exaggeration 
 to say that all conduct is in any special sense char- 
 acterized by emotion, yet conduct is frequently emo- 
 tional without being, in any ordinary sense of the term, 
 religious. Conduct becomes emotional whenever our 
 attention is strongly directed to some end, affected by
 
 3.] ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 435 
 
 our conduct, which we have come to regard as su- 
 premely important. Now this end may or may not be 
 of such a kind as we ordinarily designate religious. In 
 a hotly-contested political election, a man may perform 
 his duty as a citizen under a strong emotional influence, 
 which in some cases has been so powerful as to pro- 
 duce death. Yet we should scarcely say that his con- 
 duct is more religious than that of the good workman 
 who carefully finishes his job, without feeling that 
 anything particular is at stake. Or again, when one 
 of the parents of a large family suddenly dies, leaving 
 the whole responsibility on the shoulders of the other, 
 the sense of this new responsibility, in a conscientious 
 person, will generally cause the ordinary duties of the 
 family to be, for some time at least, performed with 
 a keener feeling than before of the issues that are at 
 stake. Yet we should scarcely say that it is thereby 
 rendered more religious. The truth is that the emo- 
 tional quality of our actions depends largely on the 
 question whether they are habitual acts, acts that 
 belong to the ordinary universe within which we live, 
 or whether we are rising into an unfamiliar universe. 
 Now it may be readily granted that religion, in any 
 real sense of the word, can hardly be made so habi- 
 tual as not to involve some uplifting of the soul, some 
 withdrawal from the point of view of ordinary life to a 
 more comprehensive or more profound apprehension 
 of the world and of our relations to it. Hence it can 
 hardly fail to involve emotion. Even the Amor iniel- 
 kctualis Dei of Spinoza, however purely intellectual it 
 may be, is still amor. But conduct may involve strong 
 and deep emotion and yet not be specially religious. 
 But, in the second place, Matthew Arnold's definition
 
 436 ETHICS. [CONCLUDING en 
 
 seems to err not merely by including much which 
 would not, in any ordinary sense, be regarded as re- 
 ligion, but also by excluding much which would 
 naturally fall under that category. Some religions 
 have scarcely any direct bearing on the moral life. 
 Even the religion of the Greeks, one of the most beauti- 
 (ful and typical of all religions, was largely a worship 
 of the powers of nature. Their gods were not con- 
 jppicuously respectable ; and though in an indirect way 
 they had an ennobling influence on Greek life, yet they 
 were not consciously set up as models of moral conduct, 
 nor did the worship of them involve any direct incite- 
 ment to virtue. They did indeed, stand to some ex- 
 tent as representations of the social bond ; so that to 
 violate social order was to offend against the gods of 
 the society. But this was not perhaps their most pro- 
 minent characteristic. And the same is true of many 
 other forms of religion. * It cannot, therefore, be said 
 that religion is always to be regarded as immediately 
 connected with the moral life. 
 
 4. THE RELATION OF RELIGION TO ART. The connec- 
 tion of religion with Ethics, in fact, appears to be very 
 similar to the connection of art with Ethics ; * and we 
 
 1 E. g., the Scandinavian. The religion of the Romans, on the 
 other hand, was strongly moral (Cf. Froude's Ccesar, p. 12). No 
 doubt, even the Scandinavian and early German mythologies con- 
 tained some strongly-marked ethical traits : Cf. Carlyle's Heroes and 
 Hero-Worship, sect I., and Prof. Pfleiderer's article on "The Na- 
 tional Traits of the Germans as seen in their Religion," in the Inter* 
 national Journal of Ethics for October, 1892 (voL iiL, No. I, pp. 27). 
 
 3 A chapter dealing with this subject, which appeared in the earlier 
 edition of this Manual, has been omitted, partly from want of space, 
 and partly because it was felt that the treatment of such a subject in 
 a handbook like this is necessarily too slight to be of any value. 
 The remarks in the present chapter will probably be found euf6-
 
 ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 43 ? 
 
 may understand the connection better by noticing the 
 relation of art to religion. Carlyle was fond of remind- 
 ing us of the connection between the terms " Worship " 
 and " Worthship." What we worship is what we re- 
 gard as having supreme worth or value. Religion, in 
 short, like art, is concerned with ideals. But while the 
 ideals of art are beautiful objects that yield an imme- 
 diate satisfaction, the ideals of religion are rather objects 
 that are regarded as having supreme and ultimate 
 worth. In their immediate aspect they may have "no 
 beauty that we should desire them." For the same 
 reason the ideals of religion must be regarded as true. 
 Art, aiming; at an immediate satisfaction, may be partly 
 dream. No doubt, if it is to be great art, it must keep 
 close to reality ; and even its most imaginative crea- 
 tions must express some inner truth in nature or in 
 morals. Indeed, in its highest forms art approaches 
 Tery closely to religion. But still it is never necessary 
 Jiat the creations of art should be absolutely true. It 
 is enough that they should be beautiful suggestions of 
 truth. Even in the highest regions of art, such a work 
 as Shakespeare's Tempest has no literal truth. There 
 are no Calibans or Ariels ; nor is it necessary for our 
 appreciation of the play that we should actually believe 
 that there are any. We can feel the whole beauty of 
 it, and yet be well aware that all the creations in it are 
 "such stuff as dreams are made of." Religion, on the 
 other hand, gives us ideals which are regarded as 
 realities, and even as the most real of things. The 
 Homeric gods, as depicted in the poems, are poetic 
 creations ; and there is no necessity for supposing 
 
 ciently intelligible without reference to the preliminary chapter on 
 Art
 
 438 ETHICS. [CONCLUDING CH, 
 
 them to be anything but dreams significant dreams, 
 no doubt, but still dreams. As worshipped by the 
 Greek people, on the other hand, the gods were neces- 
 sarily regarded as realities. Hegel, indeed, has con- 
 trasted the Greek with the Christian religion, by saying 
 that the gods of the former were mere creations of the 
 imagination. 1 This is partly true. The Greeks were 
 an artistic much more than a religious people ; and 
 their gods never became, in any complete sense, 
 definitely established objects of belief. But just to this 
 extent they remained poetry rather than religion. So 
 also in the Christian religion there are many mythical 
 elements which have been made subjects of poetry 
 and of various forms of artistic representation. We 
 may admire the paintings of Jesus and of the Virgin, 
 and feel an artistic pleasure in the contemplation of 
 them, without believing that they are anything more 
 than beautiful dreams.* But the man who takes Jesus 
 
 i See Wallace's Logic of Hegel, p. 233. 
 
 * No doubt there are stages of human development at which the 
 distinction here indicated is scarcely perceived. To the Greeks, for 
 instance, Homer supplied poetry, philosophy, and religion all in 
 one. And so, no doubt, it was to some extent in the great ages of 
 Mediaeval art At such periods the significance of art for a nation's 
 life is much greater than it is after the three provinces have been 
 more rigidly divided. " However excellent," says Hegel, " we think 
 the statues of the Greek gods, however nobly and perfectly God the 
 Father and Christ and Mary may be portrayed, it makes no differ- 
 ence, our knees no longer bend." See Bosanquet's History of 
 ^Esthetic, p. 344, and cf. Caird's Hegel, pp. m-iz Of course, the 
 clearer distinction in modern times between art and philosophy or 
 religion need not in the end cause our art to be less perfect or less 
 serious than that of the ancient world. For we may still recognize 
 that art is the best expression of all that is deepest in philosophy 
 and religion. But it is necessarily dethroned from its former unique 
 position. Homer and Dante may have been treated as authorities :
 
 5-] ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 439 
 
 as a supreme object of worship necessarily regards him 
 as real and as the greatest of realities. 
 
 5. THE NECESSITY OF RELIGION. Religion, being 
 thus akin to art, is related to Ethics in somewhat the 
 same way as art is. It carries us, in a sense, beyond 
 the moral life, by raising us to the idea of a sphere of 
 attainment beyond the sphere of mere struggle. And 
 this it does, not, like art, in the way of hint and sug- 
 gestion, but rather in the way of definite conviction. 
 Such convictions are a necessity of man's life a neces- 
 sity partly intellectual and partly moral. 1 Both on the 
 intellectual and on the moral side this necessity may 
 be said to arise from a consciousness of the incom- 
 pleteness and inadequacy of our experience. On the 
 purely intellectual side this presents itself as a feeling 
 of wonder at the inexplicable in nature. Out of this 
 wonder, as Plato taught, all science arises. But the 
 imagination outruns science, and creates explanations 
 for itself; and even after science has done its best, 
 there remains a sense of unexplained mystery into 
 which we still seek to press. On the moral side, in 
 like manner, there is a sense of inadequacy in our 
 ordinary experience a want of completeness in our 
 lives, a want of poetic justice in our fates. It is chiefly 
 on this side that religion touches on Ethics. But even 
 the demand for intellectual explanation expresses a 
 moral need. It is the desire to be at home within our 
 universe, and not to be confronted at every turn with 
 alien mysteries. In an unintelligible world we could 
 
 Shakespeare and Goethe are regarded only as exponents and illustra- 
 tors. But perhaps they have gained in breadth what they have lost 
 in height Cf. Bosanquet, of>. cit, p. 469. 
 i See Caird's Philosophy of Religion, chap. ir.
 
 44O ETHICS. [CONCLUDING CH, 
 
 not lead a moral life, because we should not know 
 what ends to propose to ourselves, or how to set about 
 realizing them. 1 Hence even when the imagination 
 constructs myths to explain the formation of the clouds 
 or the motion of the sun, it is indirectly serving mo- 
 rality. It saves us from that prosaic abandonment in 
 which the higher life expires that state in which as 
 Wordsworth complains, " Little we see in nature that 
 is ours." Natural religions, like that of the Greeks, 
 save us in some measure from this. They enable us 
 in the presence of nature to 
 
 44 Have glimpses that may make us less forlorn ; 
 Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea ; 
 Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn." 
 
 Even here, then, the religious imagination comes to 
 the aid of the moral life. Still, it is chiefly in so far 
 as it supplies a relief from the inadequacy of the moral 
 life itself that religion touches on Ethics. On this 
 aspect we must now look a little more closely. 
 
 6. THE FAILURE OF LIFE. Those who fix their at- 
 tention on the lives of individuals have always suf- 
 ficient ground for Pessimism. Even the most favoured 
 human beings attain only a small part of what they 
 hope ; and what they hope is generally but a small 
 part of what they would wish to be able to hope. 
 And a large proportion of the human race scarcely 
 seem to get the length of hope at all. Nor is it merely 
 
 1 It is chiefly for this reason that intellectual scepticism is apt to 
 have a detrimental effect on the moral life. This effect was strongly 
 insisted on by Plato, and, in more recent times, by Carlyle. Descartes 
 also, in the pursuit of his intellectual scepticism, felt the need of 
 guarding himself against its moral accompaniment See his Dis* 
 tonrst of Method, Part III. Burke also emphasized this point
 
 /.] ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 441 
 
 that the average individual does not get so much out 
 of life as he could wish. The apparent unfairness of 
 fate is equally galling. Sometimes the sight of the 
 wicked flourishing "like the green bay tree " offends 
 the moral sense even more than the failures of the 
 righteous ; and this not from envy, but from a sense 
 of injustice. 
 
 7. THE FAILURE OF SOCIETY. Some consolation 
 may be found, indeed, for the failure of the individual 
 life in the confidence that society at least goes on ad- 
 vancing. But the progress of society can scarcely 
 be regarded as compensating for individual failure. 
 Society is not an entity apart from the individuals who 
 compose it ; and if the individuals fail, society cannot 
 have wholly succeeded. It might be argued, indeed, 
 that it is moving towards success, towards some " far- 
 off divine event." Still no such event could be morally 
 satisfactory if it were reached, so to speak, by tramp- 
 ling over the fallen bodies of generations of men who 
 "all died not having received the promises." 1 And 
 even the poor comfort that society advances, does not 
 seem an altogether certain hope. In nearly all ages 
 wise men have been inclined to think that they and 
 their generation were no better than their fathers ; 
 and even if we can on the whole trace a line of 
 progress through the lives of nations, "yet progress 
 has many receding waves," * and in nearly every case 
 it seems to be followed in the end by a period of cor- 
 
 1 This point is strikingly emphasized in Prof. A. Seth's pamphlet 
 on The Present Position of the Philosophical Sciences, near the end 
 Cf. also his Hegelianism and Personality, p. 228. With much of 
 what is said in both these places, however, I do not agree. 
 
 * Sorley's Ethics of Naturalism, p. 272.
 
 442 ETHICS. [CONCLUDING CH. 
 
 ruption and decline. And even such progress as there 
 is, appears only to lead in an asymptotical way to 
 the goal that we hope for. The highest civilizations 
 that have ever been achieved, have been accompanied 
 by corrupting luxury on the one hand and degrading 
 toil and misery on the other ; and there has never 
 been a time at which the most deeply moral natures 
 have not been made to feel that, in some important 
 respects, the world was out of joint, and that neither 
 they nor any others were born to set it right. Is there, 
 it may well be asked, any sober and certain ground for 
 supposing that it will ever be otherwise ? If not, we 
 must regard society as having failed, just as, for the 
 most part, the individual life is perceived to fail. 
 
 8. THE FAILURE OF ART. Conscious of the failure 
 of life and society, many of the finest natures have 
 taken refuge in art. Matthew Arnold, in one of the 
 most striking of his poems, 1 represents Goethe as 
 turning from the vain strife of his age, after having ex- 
 posed its weaknesses, and proclaiming to his contem- 
 poraries as their last resort " Art still has truth, take 
 refuge there." And indeed in the same poem Matthew 
 Arnold describes the message of Wordsworth to his 
 generation, though in very different language, as 
 being yet substantially the same. Seeing the folly 
 and confusion of the actual world around him, he 
 taught his age to set it aside, and seek relief in feel- 
 ing. But this is a somewhat treacherous refuge. 
 "Art for Art's sake" is a shallow doctrine at the best.* 
 It is true in a sense that art is play. Ernst ist das 
 
 1 Memorial Verses. 
 
 * Se Bosanquet's History of ^Esthetic, p. 457.
 
 8.] ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 443 
 
 Leben, heiter ist die Kunsi. 1 Men may seek a tem- 
 porary relief in it from the struggle of life ; and it 
 may be a not unworthy commendation to say of a 
 great poet 
 
 " The cloud of mortal destiny. 
 Others will front it fearlessly 
 But who, like him, will put it by ?" 
 
 But even this service can be rendered to us by art 
 only so long as it is believed by us to be a revelation 
 of a deeper truth in things. 8 If it is taken merely as 
 art, merely as a beautiful dream, it s f r, 1 's into play, 
 becomes a mere refined amusement, and loses all its 
 real power over the human spirit.3 There could 
 hardly be any worse sign of an age than that it 
 regards art as a mere amusement, as a mere escape 
 from the graver problems of life* In the great ages 
 of art, there has always been a ftr'li behind the art 
 a belief that it symbolizes trutLc lhat are eternal, and 
 that can be expressed, though with an unspeakable 
 loss of adequacy and completeness, in sober prose as 
 well as in the form of artistic dreams. Their art was, 
 indeed, in a sense, play ; but it was a playful mode 
 'of giving utterance to the exuberance of a nation's 
 faith, and as such it had the highest beauty and value. 
 
 1 " Life is serious, art is joyous." Schiller. Cf. Bosanquet's His- 
 tory of ^Esthetic, p. 296. 
 
 1 On the relation of Beauty to Truth, see Caird's Essays on Litera- 
 ture and Philosophy, voL i., pp. 54-65, 151-154, &c. ; and cf. Bosan- 
 quet's History of ^Esthetic, pp. 336, 458-460, &c 
 
 * " We cannot give the name of sacred poet to the ' idle singer of 
 an empty day,' but only to him who can express the deepest and 
 widest interests of human life." Caird, loc. ciL, p. 154. Cf. also 
 Caird's Critical Philosophy of Kant, voL ii., pp. 465-6. 
 
 4 Dante actually gave a prose interpretation of his Divine
 
 444 ETHICS. [CONCLUDING CH. 
 
 But as a desperate escape from scepticism it could have 
 no such worth. Its dreams, if they were supposed to 
 be altogether unreal, would only make the emptiness 
 of life the more conspicuous. ' We might still feel that 
 they were beautiful ; but it would be like the beautify- 
 ing of a sepulchre full of dead men's bones. The soul 
 would have gone out of them. 
 
 9. THE DEMAND FOR THE INFINITE. "Man'sUnhap- 
 piness," says Carlyle, "comes of his greatness. It is 
 because there is an Infinite in him which with all his 
 cunning he cannot quite bury under the finite." The 
 ideal unity of our self-consciousness demands a per- 
 fectly harmonious and intelligible universe ; and this 
 cannot be found so long as we see the world in its 
 finite aspect, as a series of isolated events set over 
 against each other. Art partly breaks down this 
 finitude, and lets us see the infinite significance of it 
 shining through. 3 But it does this in a form that is 
 not quite adequate to the truth a form that is partly 
 playful ; and we return from its ideals to the actual 
 
 1 Some suggestive remarks on the possibility of making art a sub- 
 stitute for religion will be found in Dilhring's Erzatz der Religion, 
 pp. 106-111. See also Caird's Hegel, pp. 37-8. 
 
 * Carlyle says (Heroes and Hero-Worship, LecL III.) that music 
 is " a kind of inarticulate unfathomable speech, which leads us to 
 the edge of the Infinite, and lets us for moments gaze into that,* 
 C/. also Caird's Hegel, pp. 112-114; a d see the passage quoted 
 from Hegel in Bosanquet's History of ^Esthetic, p. 361. " For in art 
 we have to do with no mere toy of pleasure or of utility, but with 
 the liberation of the mind from the content and forms of the finite, 
 with the presence and union of the Absolute within the sensuous 
 and phenomenal, and with an unfolding of truth which is not ex- 
 hausted in the evolution of nature, but reveals itself in the world- 
 history, of which it constitutes the most beautiful aspect and the best 
 reward for the hard toil of reality and the tedious labours of know- 
 ledge."
 
 10.] ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 44$ 
 
 world with all our discontent again sometimes, in- 
 deed, with our discontent deepened and intensified. 
 Art reaches its intuitions of truth, as Browning put it, 
 "at first leap ; " and often, when reflection supervenes, 
 we find that what we have received is not a solution 
 of our problems, but at most the suggestion of a solu- 
 tion. What we require is an ideal which shall at the 
 same time be absolutely real. 
 
 10. THE Two INFINITES. Now there are two main 
 forms in which we become aware of the infinite as a 
 reality within our experience what we may call the 
 purely intellectual form and the moral form. These 
 two are well expressed by Kant in a familiar passage, 
 in which he states the two great objects of reverence. * 
 "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increas- 
 ing admiration and awe, the oftener and the more 
 steadily we reflect on them : the starry heavens above 
 and the moral law within. I have not to search for 
 them and conjecture them as though they were veiled 
 in darkness or were in the transcendent region beyond 
 my horizon ; I see them before me and connect them 
 directly with the consciousness of my existence. The 
 former begins from the place I occupy in the external 
 world of sense, and enlarges my connection therein to 
 an unbounded extent with worlds upon worlds and sys- 
 tems of systems. . . . The second begins from my in- 
 risible self, my personality, and exhibits me in a world 
 which has true infinity, but which is traceable only by 
 the understanding, and with which I discern that I am 
 
 i Conclusion of Critique of Practical Reason (Abbott's translation), 
 p. 360. Cf. also Janet's Theory of M orals. Book III., chap. xiL, whera 
 the whole subject of the relation of Ethics to Religion is treated ia 
 suggestive way.
 
 446 ETHICS. [CONCLUDING CH. 
 
 not in a merely contingent but in a universal and nec- 
 essary connection. . . . The former view of a countless 
 multitude of worlds annihilates as it were my import- 
 ance as an animal creature, which after it has been for 
 a short time provided with vital power, one knows not 
 how, must again give back the matter of which it was 
 formed to the planet it inhabits (a mere speck in tho 
 universe). The second, on the contrary, infinitely 
 elevates my worth as an intelligence by my person- 
 ality, in which the moral law reveals to me a life in- 
 dependent on animality and even on the whole sen- 
 sible world,^ at least so far as may be inferred from 
 the destination assigned to my existence by this law, a 
 destination not restricted to conditions and limits of 
 this life, but reaching into the infinite." These two 
 reverences, separately or in combination, may be said 
 to furnish the basis of religious worship. When the 
 first is taken alone, it gives rise to Pantheism or to 
 Agnosticism : when the second is taken alone, it gives 
 rise to Monotheism or to the Religion of Humanity. 
 When the two are combined, we have a more com- 
 plete form of religion. 
 
 11. THE FIRST RELIGION. The first form of reve- 
 rence, then, in which the demand for the infinite is 
 recognized, is the worship of Nature in the boundless- 
 ness of its extent and power. In its crudest form this 
 religion is summed up in the saying that " All is God." 
 This form of worship rises very naturally in our minds 
 when we are brought face to face with the great 
 elemental forces of nature. " What is man," we are 
 then tempted to exclaim, "that he should be put in 
 comparison with the infinity of the material universe ! " 
 This point of view is materialistic, and is scarcely dis-
 
 12.] ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 447 
 
 tinguishable from Atheism. It is, however, a super- 
 ficial view. The infinity which is reached by the mere 
 adding on of an endless number of parts is what Hegel 
 called "the bad infinite." Such^an infinity is in no 
 way more satisfying to our minds than the finite is. 
 The mere fact that we cannot get to an end of a thing 
 does not add anything to its value. The blank empti- 
 ness of space, for instance, has no worth for us. The 
 deeper Pantheism is distinguished from this superficial 
 one, in that its meaning is summed up, not in the say- 
 ing that "All is God," but that "God is all" i. e. that 
 the finite world is an unreality, and that the ultimate 
 reality is the spiritual power behind it. This view is 
 developed, with great force and suggestiveness, in the 
 Ethics of Spinoza. 1 Since, however, it rests on the 
 mere negation of the finite, it ends either in the asser- 
 tion of blank nothingness as the ultimate reality (the 
 Nirvana of the Buddhists), or in the assertion of some 
 ultimate reality of which nothing can be known (the 
 Unknowable of Mr. Herbert Spencer). This infinity of 
 emptiness is in the end quite as unsatisfactory (both 
 from an intellectual and from a moral point of view) as 
 the infinity of an inexhaustible aggregate. 
 
 12. THE SECOND RELIGION. The second religion is 
 the worship of the moral law in the absoluteness of its 
 authority. In order, however, that this may be made 
 an object of reverence, it requires to be regarded as 
 embodied in some concrete form. The simplest form 
 is that of a supreme Law-giver, as in the religion of 
 the Jews. The unsatisfactoriness of this view arises 
 from the fact that such a Law-giver has to be thought 
 of as external to that to which he gives the law. He 
 
 i There is, however, another side to the doctrine of Spinoza, which
 
 448 ETHICS. [CONCLUDING CH. 
 
 deals with a. refractory material He requires, there- 
 fore, to be thought of as in some sense finite, * being 
 limited by a world outside. Accordingly, this view 
 leads readily to Manicheism, the belief in an infinite 
 Devil as well as an infinite God. Other methods of 
 escape are (i) to say frankly, like J. S. Mill, that God 
 is not infinite at all, a which deprives us of that supreme 
 satisfaction which the infinite alone can give ; or (2) to 
 abandon the idea of a personal God, and assert only a 
 progressive realization of the moral ideal. This latter 
 resource appears in the Religion of Humanity, insti- 
 tuted by Auguste Comte,* in which the human race as 
 a whole is represented as a Great Being struggling for- 
 ward against the opposing tendencies of an unintelli- 
 gent and unintelligible nature. A similar view is to be 
 found in Matthew Arnold's idea of a "Power, not our- 
 selves, that makes for righteousness." The inherent 
 weakness of any such position is that it leaves an ir- 
 reconcilable dualism in our world. Evil is left unac- 
 counted for, and we have no assurance that it will be 
 finally overcome with good. 
 
 13. THE THIRD RELIGION. It is one of the supreme 
 merits of the Christian religion that it combines these 
 two infinites so completely. The God of Christianity 
 is conceived at once as the infinite Power revealed in 
 nature, and as the source and end of the moral ideal. It 
 
 is even more important and characteristic, and which brings it into 
 connection rather with the moral point of view, referred to in the 
 next section. The same may be said of Buddhism. 
 1 In which case this view would become identical with Mill's. 
 
 * A similar view is developed in a recent book entitled Riddles oj 
 ike Sphinx. 
 
 For an account and criticism of this, see Caird's Social Philoso- 
 phy and Religion of Comic, 
 
 \
 
 I4-] ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 449 
 
 enables men to see in the world outside them the work- 
 ing out of their own moral aspirations, 1 to believe that 
 " morality is the nature of things," and to have con- 
 fidence, not indeed that "whatever is, is right," but 
 that ' ' whatever is right, is " i. e. as Carlyle put it, 
 that "the soul of the world is just," that in the last 
 resort "the Good" (in Plato's phrase) is the only- 
 reality. Other religions have partly contained this 
 same inspiring faith ; but Christianity seems to bring it 
 out most clearly. 
 
 14. RELIGION AND SUPERSTITION. It has been fre- 
 quently noted that ages of religious faith tend to be 
 rapidly followed by times of doubt and disbelief. The 
 cause of this is not far to seek. The religious imagina- 
 tion, as we have already remarked, in its effort after 
 a final explanation of the mysteries of things, outruns 
 science. It cannot wait for the plodding processes 
 of reasoning and verification. But these come after- 
 wards ; and when they come, they generally find that 
 the kernel of religious truth has been hastily wrapped 
 up in a husk of superstition. The religions of the 
 world have grown out of the buoyant faith of some 
 imaginative and impassioned natures. To the founders 
 of them they have nearly always been an inextricable 
 blending of truth and poetry. * Those who came aftei 
 
 1 Beautifully expressed by Browning Epistle from Karshish 
 
 " So through the darkness comes a human voice. 
 Saying 'O heart I made, a heart beats here," &c. 
 
 3 /. e. their meaning takes the form of an image, which for them 
 is inseparable from the meaning. As the Germans say, the Bcgrijf 
 (i. e. the conception or meaning) appears in the form of a VorsUllung 
 (imaginative representation). C/. Wallace's Logic of Hegel (First 
 Edition), pp. 1-2, and Ixxxvii buorix, 
 
 Eth. 29
 
 4$o ETHICS. [CONCLUDING CH. 
 
 them have seldom been able to catch just that point of 
 view at which insight passed into beauty. The poetry 
 evaporates, and the truth does not remain. The happy 
 intuition becomes a miserable creed ; and the beautiful 
 images that clustered round it turn into the spectres of 
 superstition. Then, as soon as another man of real 
 insight arises, the hollowness of the dogma is revealed, 
 and with this revelation the entire religion appears to 
 be exploded. The gods before which the rapt adora- 
 tion of saint and poet once knelt become mere names 
 that serve perhaps only to give gusto to an oath. 
 
 15. THE ETHICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RELIGION. What 
 remains essential in religion, however, is the convic- 
 tion of the reality of the moral life ; and this convic- 
 tion it is which metaphysics is required to justify. In 
 other words, it has to justify the belief that the moral 
 life is worth living. From a practical point of view we 
 may say no doubt that such a justification is hardly re- 
 quired. It is the faith which is inevitably involved in 
 life itself, just as in science there is involved the faith 
 that the world can be seen as an intelligible system. 
 In a stirring article entitled "Is Life worth Living?" 
 Professor James remarks "If this life be not a real 
 fight, in which something is eternally gained for the 
 universe by success, it is no better than a game of 
 private theatricals from which one may withdraw 
 at will. But it feels like a real fight ; " and he con- 
 cludes by urging that our attitude on this matter is 
 necessarily one of faith. "Believe," he says, "that 
 life is worth living, and your belief will half create the 
 fact The 'scientific proof that you are right may 
 not be clear before the day of judgment (or some stage 
 f Being which that expression may serve to symbolize)
 
 1 6.] ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 451 
 
 is reached. But the faithful fighters of this hour, or the 
 beings that then and there will represent them, may 
 then turn to the faint-hearted, who here decline to go 
 on, with words like those with which Henry IV. 
 greeted the tardy Crillon after a great victory had been 
 gained : ' Hang yourself, Crillon 1 we fought at Arques, 
 and you were not there.' " 
 
 The belief, then, that the moral life is in this sense 
 real may be said to be the essential significance of 
 religion ; and without some such belief the moral life 
 is hardly possible at all. In all spheres of thought, 
 however, the human intellect demands proof ; and the 
 proof of this particular point can only be found in 
 metaphysics. 
 
 16. THE ULTIMATE PROBLEMS OF METAPHYSICS. We 
 thus see how it is that the science of Ethics is incom- 
 plete in itself, and stretches out its hands to metaphysics. 
 But in a sense this is true of all science, and we may 
 even say, of all art All positive science rests on 
 the belief that the world can be seen as an intelligible 
 system, and this belief cannot be justified except by 
 metaphysical inquiry. All fine art, in like manner, at 
 least in its higher and more serious forms, may be said 
 to rest upon the conviction that " Beauty is Truth," that 
 the point of view from which the beautiful is appre- 
 hended is a point of view which grasps a more essen- 
 tial form of actuality than that which appears in mere 
 existence. Similarly, the moral point of view involves 
 the conviction that Good is more real than Evil, that 
 the moral ideal has a higher actnality ' than the exist- 
 
 1 In so far as such a point of view as that here indicated can be 
 adopted, the Ideal becomes transformed into the Idea (in the sens* 
 in which that term was used by Plato and Hegel) i, c, instead of
 
 45 2 ETHICS. [CONCLUDING CH, 
 
 ing world as it appears to the ordinary consciousness 
 of mankind. 
 
 How this can be established by metaphysical reflec- 
 tion it is not our business here to inquire. It may be 
 possible, as in the system of Hegel, to show that "the 
 actual is rational, and the rational is actual ;" or again, 
 it may only be possible, as in the view of Bradley, to 
 show that the moral point of view contains a higher 
 ' ' degree of reality " than that to which it is- opposed. 
 Or it may be that we are left in a purely agnostic posi- 
 tion. Such questions could not be answered here 
 except in a purely dogmatic fashion, and a dogmatic 
 answer is of course worse than none. It is enough for 
 us to have indicated where the ultimate problem lies ; 
 and to have shown that Ethics, regarded as a separate 
 science, is not complete in itself. 1 
 
 being thought of Ideologically, as the end or standard by which we 
 are guided in the realization of the moral life, it would be regarded 
 rather as the underlying principle by which reality itself is deter- 
 mined, in the process by which its inner significance is gradually 
 unfolded. Thus, from the point of view of religion, or of a meta- 
 physical system such as that of Plato or Hegel, the distinction 
 between the Ideal and the Actual vanishes. The term Idea, ex- 
 presses in this sense (which must be carefully distinguished from 
 its use by Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, &c), the point of 
 view from which this transcendence of the opposition takes place. 
 But it would obviously be far beyond the scope of such a work as 
 this to consider whether this point of view can be justified. It would 
 require a complete metaphysical system to deal with it 
 
 1 Metaphysics is a subject which it is hardly worth while for any 
 one to take up unless he intends to study it thoroughly. The student 
 who takes it up in this way will soon find that the writer who is 
 most important at the present time is HegeL A popular introduc- 
 tion to Hegel has been written by Dr. Edward Caird (Blackwood's 
 Philosophical Classics); and Professor Wallace has also written 
 valuable Prolegomena to his Translation of the Logic and the P/ZJ'/O. 
 sophy of Mind. The best introduction to Hegel an English is, how*
 
 l6.] ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS. 453 
 
 ever, Caird's Critical Philosophy of Kant, where the transition from 
 Kant to Hegel is explained with the greatest thoroughness and 
 clearness. Mr. McTaggart's Studies in Hegelian Dialectic and the 
 Prefatory Essay to Dr. Bosanquet's translation of the Introduction 
 to Hegel's Aesthetik may also be found helpful. As a more ele- 
 mentary introduction to the study of Metaphysics, Watson's Comte, 
 Mill and Spencer may be recommended, with some slight reserva- 
 tions ; and, for still more elementary purposes, Mr. W. M. Salter's 
 First Steps in Philosophy may be mentioned. With special reference 
 to the more religious aspect of the subject, Caird's Evolution of 
 Religion will be found exceedingly instructive. Mr. Bradley's Ap- 
 pearance and Reality is the most important attempt at a metaphysical 
 construction in English. It is largely, but not entirely in harmony 
 with the Hegelian system. But perhaps it must still be sorrowfu'ly 
 admitted, as it was by Kant, that " Metaphysics is undoubtedly the 
 most difficult of sciences ; but it is a science that has not yet come 
 into existence."
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 NOTE ON ETHICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 THB chief function of such a handbook as this must be, like that 
 f Goldsmith's village preacher, to " allure to brighter worlds and 
 lead the way." The " brighter worlds " in this case are the works of 
 the great masters of the science. To these frequent references have 
 been given throughout this sketch ; but it may be worth while now to 
 make a few general remarks upon them, and to indicate the order 
 in which they may be most profitably read. The precise order in 
 which they should be taken will of course depend partly on indi- 
 vidual taste, and partly on the amount of time at the student's 
 disposal 
 
 For the majority of readers, I believe that Mill's Utilitarianism 
 will be found one of the most easy and interesting books to begin 
 upon ; and it will give a good general impression of the Hedonistic 
 point of view. If thought desirable, the concluding chapter on 
 Justice may be omitted on a first reading. The study of the whole 
 book may be accompanied by a reference to the criticisms contained 
 in Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics. 
 
 Portions of Kant ought also to be read at an early date. The 
 student will soon find that modern Ethics, like modern Philosophy 
 generally, turns largely upon him. The first two sections of the 
 Jdetaphysic of Moral (to be found in Abbott's KanFs Tlieory oj 
 Ethics) will be found comparatively easy, even by students who 
 have not read anything on Metaphysics, and will convey a fair un- 
 derstanding of Kant's general position : but it is difficult to proceed 
 far in Kant's ethical system without some knowledge of his meta- 
 physical principles. 1 
 
 The student who has mastered the general principles of Mill and 
 Kant will have a fair idea of the bases of the Utilitarian and the 
 
 > Those who are prepared to go fully into Kant's point of view 
 will find invaluable aid in Caird's Critical Philosophy of Kant 
 
 455
 
 456 APPENDIX. 
 
 Idealistic systems of morals. Those who wish to go more fully 5nto 
 the modern developments of these points of view must read Sidg- 
 wick's Methods of Ethics and Green's Prolegomena. Of these two, 
 Green's is the more difficult to understand, on account of his strongly 
 metaphysical point of view. Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, how- 
 ever, will give the student great assistance in following the line of 
 Green's argument 
 
 Sidgwick's book has the advantage of supplying the student not 
 only with the best statement of the modern Utilitarian point of view, 
 but also with the best criticism of Intuitionism. For a statement of 
 the Intuitionist point of view by one of its own adherents, reference 
 may be made to Martineau's Types of Ethical Theory. An element- 
 ary student, however, would probably find this book somewhat 
 confusing. 
 
 The chief books written from the Evolutionist point of view are 
 Spencer's Data of Ethics, 1 Stephen's Science of Ethics and Alex- 
 ander's Moral Order and Progress* Each of these possesses spe- 
 cial merits of its own. Mr. Alexander's book seems to me the most 
 profound of the three ; but for this very reason it may perhaps be 
 the most difficult for an elementary student Mr. Stephen's book, 
 being by a man of letters, is written in remarkably clear and 
 vigorous English, and will probably be found the most pleasant to 
 read It is also in some respects the most suggestive. Mr. Spencer's 
 work has the advantage of forming part of a complete and compre- 
 hensive speculative system ; and the way in which he connects 
 Ethics with the various other departments of knowledge gives his 
 book a peculiar interest and stimulating power, especially perhaps 
 for young students. Otherwise, it does not seem to me so satisfac- 
 tory as the work of either of the other two. 
 
 While, however, the more recent books will naturally have a cer- 
 tain attraction for the student, he ought not to neglect the older 
 masterpieces. Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Ethics 8 are still in 
 many respects the greatest works on Ethics that we possess ; and 
 
 i Now Part I. of The Principles of Ethics. 
 
 * Chapters v. and vi in Darwin's Descent of Man may also be 
 referred to. But the treatment of this subject there is slight and 
 superficial 
 
 * In connection with these, Bosanquet's Companion to Plato's Re- 
 public and Muirhead's Chapters from Aristotle's Ethics may be used. 
 See also the Commentaries by Nettleship and Stewart.
 
 NOTE ON ETHICAL LITERATURE. 457 
 
 every serious student ought to read them at as early a point in his 
 course as he finds possible. Spinoza's Ethics is a very difficult book, 
 and can only be fully appreciated by an advanced student of Meta- 
 physics.! The same remark is on the whole true of Hegel's Philoso- 
 phic des Rechtsa. great book of which at last there is a tolerable 
 translation. Some of the most important points in Hegel's system are, 
 however, reproduced in a simple and interesting form in Dewey's 
 Outlines of a Critical Theory of Ethics. 3 Bradley's Ethical Studies 
 also represents the Hegelian point of view ; but this most interest- 
 ing and stimulating work is unhappily out of print 8 Among other 
 works of historical importance, which the student may profitably 
 read, may be mentioned Butler's Sermons and Dissertation H. 
 (" Of the Nature of Virtue "), Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, 
 Books II. and III., or Dissertation on the Passions and Inquiry con- 
 cerning the Principles of Morals, Adam Smiths Theory o] Moral Sen- 
 timent, Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bacon's De 
 Augmentis, Books VII. and VIII., and Hobbes's Leviathan.* 
 
 1 Students who desire to read Spinoza will derive great assistance 
 from Principal Caird's excellent monograph in Blackwood = " Philo- 
 sophical Classics." Those who read German will find his whole 
 system expounded very fully and with extraordinary clearness and 
 brilliancy in Kuno Fischer's Gcschichte der ncuern Philosophic, l.,ii. 
 For a shorter account, students may be referred to the article on 
 " Cartesianism " in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Spinoza as a 
 pure Determinist, and as : ic who wholly excludes the conception 
 of ideals or of final causes, may be said to begin by denying the 
 possibility of Ethics. He treats it as a positive or natural history 
 science, not as a normative science. C/.. above, p. 92, note I. But as 
 he goes on with the development of his system, he is led, in spite of 
 himself, to admit the conception of an ideal or end in human life, 
 and even of a certain " immanent finality* in nature. This point is 
 well brought out by Principal Caird (op. cit., pp. 270, 304) 
 
 2 Hegel's Philosophy of History (translated in Bohn's Series) will 
 also be found very interesting. 
 
 * Bosanquet's Civilization of Christendom a collection of Essays 
 on Applied Ethics is also written from this point of view 
 
 * A lairly complete list of important English works on Ethics, 
 arranged according to schools, will be found at the ei:d of Muir- 
 head's Elements of Ethics.
 
 4j8 APPENDIX. 
 
 Many other useful books might be mentioned Students who 
 read German will find Paulsen's System der Ethik, 1 Hoffding's 
 Ethik, Wundt's Ethik, and Simmel's Einleitung in die Moralwissen- 
 schaft, of the greatest value.2 In French, the writings of Guyau and 
 Fouille*e will be found particularly suggestive : Simon's Du Devoir 
 and Renouvier's La Science Morale may also be referred to. For 
 Social Ethics Comte's Politique Positive is invaluable. 8 I may 
 also mention Sorley*s Ethics of Naturalism,* Fowldr's Progressive 
 Morality, Clifford's Lectures and Essays (containing some extremely 
 suggestive points), Lotze's Practical Philosophy , Janet's Theory oj 
 Morals, Royce's Religious Aspect of Philosophy, Edgeworth's Mathe- 
 matical Psychics and New and Old Methods of Ethics. In the 
 History of Ethics, in addition to Sidgwick's History of Ethics and to 
 the short statements contained in General Histories of Philosophy 
 (ft, g. Erdmann's, Zeller's, and Kuno Fischer's), reference may be 
 made to Lecky's History of European Morals, to Stephen's English 
 Thought in the Eighteenth Century, and (for readers of German) to 
 Ziegler's Ethik der Grlechen und RSmern and Gcschichte der Christ- 
 lichen Ethik, and to Jodl's Gcschichte der neuern Ethik. C. M. Wil- 
 liams's recent work on Evolutional Ethics will be found useful 
 with reference to that particular school Notices of current litera- 
 ture on the subject, as well as discussions on particular points, 
 will be found from time to time in the pages of Mind, of the Philo- 
 sophical Review, and of the International Journal of Ethics. 
 
 1 This is particularly valuable on the side of Applied Ethics. 
 
 * The last-named is almost purely critical. 
 
 For a summary of Comte's point of view, see Caird's Social 
 Philosophy and Religion of Comte. For the history of social Ethics 
 before Comte, reference may be made to Janet's Histoire de la 
 Science Politique ; also to the same writer's Philosophic de la Revolu- 
 tion francaise, Saint-Simon et le Saint-Simonisme, and Les Origincs 
 du Socialisme contemporain. See also Mohl's Gcschichte und Litera- 
 tur der Staatswissenschaften. 
 
 4 Containing extremely valuable criticisms of the Utilitarian and 
 Evolutionist schools.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 4 BBOTT, T. K. : referred to, 
 <* 192, 344. 
 Act : will and, 54-7. 
 
 resolution and, 398-9. 
 
 crime and, 398-9. 
 
 Action: reflection and, 109,384-8. 
 
 nature of voluntary, 98-100. 
 Actions : as lies, 189, 338. 
 
 and motives, 65, 388. 
 
 as dependent on character, 407. 
 
 and remorse, 408. 
 
 Activity : involved in morality, 14. 
 Adjustment : in relation to morals 
 
 and science, 239 teq. 
 Adler: referred to, 349, 374. 
 .aesthetics and Ethics, 12, 16, 
 
 28-30, 177 teq. 
 Alexander: on natural selection 
 
 in murals, 243 teq. 
 
 on sroiul conduct, 245-6. 
 
 on uuiies, 333. 
 
 on virtue and duty, 343-4. 
 
 on the relation of the virtues 
 
 to social institutions, 352. 
 
 on vices as old virtues, 394. 
 Altruism : and Egoism, 293. 
 
 conciliation of, with Egoism 
 
 (Spencer), 293-4. 
 Animals : conduct in, 85, 105-6. 
 
 incapable of higher sins, 415. 
 
 moral judgment in, 114. 
 
 relation to men, 424-5. 
 
 spontaneity of, 94. 
 Appetite : and Want, 44 seq. 
 
 and desire, 46 seq., 248. 
 Aristotle : ou moral activity, 14. 
 
 Aristotle : on the Good Will, 18. 
 
 on Ethics and Politirs, 32. 
 
 definition of the Good, 44. 
 
 on motive, 64. 
 
 on good habit and the good 
 
 man, 84, 88. 
 
 on the relation of virtue and 
 
 knowledge, 88. 
 
 view of Ethics, 152, 296. 
 
 on practical utility of Ethics, 
 
 350. 
 
 on virtue as a mean, 358. 
 
 list of virtues, 358-9, 372-3. 
 
 on changing of character, 367. 
 
 " practical syllogism," 370. 
 
 definition of virtue, 371. 
 
 on the contemplative life, 384, 
 
 387. 
 
 referred to, 3, 46, 53, 89, 92, 
 
 268, 272, 284, 288, 291, 295, 
 318, 329, 331, 394/456. 
 
 Arnauld : quoted (on rest ,373. 
 
 Arnold, Matthew : on Conduct, 
 17. 
 
 definition of religion, 433-6. 
 
 on art as truth, 442. 
 
 and a " power not ourselves, 
 
 that makes for righteoua- 
 nefis," 448. 
 
 Art: and Science, 11-12. 
 morality a fine, 12 teq., 28-30. 
 
 relation to religion, 436 teq. 
 
 the failure of, 442-4. 
 Ascetic principle: Bentham on, 
 
 205. 
 Asceticism, 383-4. 
 
 459
 
 460 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Atheism, 447. 
 
 Attainment: progressive &nd. catat' 
 
 trophic, 79 seq. 
 Authority, 255 seq. 
 
 T3ACKSLIDING, 307. 
 -*-* Bacon : referred to, 365. 
 Bain, Prof. : referred to, 68. 
 Beautiful souls, 29-30, 382-3. 
 Beautiful, the : and the Good, 
 
 177-8. 
 
 Beauty, 28-30, 177-8. 
 Bentham : on pleasure and pain, 
 
 67. 
 
 his life, 159-160. 
 
 on " the Ascetic Principle," 
 
 205. 
 
 confused egoistic and univer- 
 
 salistic hedonism, 211. 
 
 his view of " ought," 213. 
 
 on value of pleasures, 214. 
 
 doggerel on qualities of 
 
 pleasures, 215. 
 
 discarded the expression "of 
 
 the greatest number," 222. 
 
 on final and efficient cause of 
 
 human action, 261-2. 
 
 on sanctions, 259, 261-4. 
 
 Biology, 26-7, 235 seq. 
 
 Blunc, Louis: referred to, 315. 
 
 Blessedness : term for the satis- 
 faction of higher desires, 
 227. 
 
 Bosanqnet: on Moral Ideas 
 and Ideas about Morality, 
 110. 
 
 on " the scholars golden rule," 
 
 363. 
 
 referred to, 87, 113, 274, 444, 
 
 453. 
 
 Bradley, P. H. : what pleasure is, 
 224. 
 
 on personal opinions as self- 
 
 conceit, 355. 
 
 on being a whole, 367. 
 
 referred to, 67, 170, 203, 274, 
 
 346, 354, 453. 
 Browne, Sir T. : quoted, 196. 
 
 Browning: quoted on art, 16, 
 139. 
 
 on change of universe, 251. 
 
 on education of character, 
 
 368. 
 
 on estimate of an individual, 
 
 84, 385, 401. 
 
 on intuitions of art, 445. 
 
 on religion, 449. 
 
 referred to, 362. 
 
 Bryant, S. : referred to, on edu- 
 cation, 34. 
 
 on fortitude, 361. 
 
 Bryce, J. : quoted, 115, 207-8. 
 Buckle: referred to, 401, 426. 
 Buddha : referred to, 390. 
 Buddhists : referred to, 447. 
 Burke: quoted, 356, 411. 
 Burns: quoted, 136. 
 Butler, J. : on conscience, 182 seq., 
 185, 266-8. 
 
 on objects and desires, 71. 
 
 on authority, 257, 267. 
 
 on self-love, 267. 
 
 CAIRD, E. : on Kant, 159. 
 on art, 443. 
 
 referred to, 452-3, 455. 
 Caird, Princ. J. : referred to, 52, 
 
 457. 
 
 Calculus of pleasure, 229. 
 Capacity and act, 14. 
 Carlyle : his view of Economics, 
 
 12. 
 
 on character as an inheritance, 
 
 102. 
 
 on blessedness and happiness, 
 
 227. 
 
 on a clear conscience, 304. 
 
 on slavery, 318. 
 
 his commandment, 339, 346. 
 
 on the unconscious as the only 
 
 complete, 375. 
 
 on know thyself, 386. 
 
 on crime and act, 399. 
 
 on birth of heroes, 412. 
 
 on ' Progress of the Speciee,' 
 
 416.
 
 INDJdX. 
 
 Garlyle : on greatness and melan- 
 choly, 429. 
 
 on worship, 437. 
 
 on greatness and unhappinesa, 
 
 444. 
 
 on music, 444. 
 
 " the soul of the world is just," 
 
 449. 
 
 referred to, 172, 256, 269, 322, 
 
 376, 383, 392. 
 
 quoted, 396. 
 Cartesians, 153, 268. 
 Casuistry, 339-41. 
 Categorical imperative, 169 seq. 
 Categories, 188. 
 
 Cause, final and efficient, 62. 
 
 Bentham on, 261-2. 
 Celibacy, 200. 
 
 Chalmers, Dr. : referred to, 368. 
 Character, 83-4. 
 
 Novalis on, 57. 
 
 of women : Pope on, 68, 396. 
 
 as object of the moral judg- 
 
 ment, 137-8. 
 
 respect for, 335-6. 
 
 education of, 366 seq. 
 
 a weak, 395. 
 
 of great strength, 396. 
 
 development of, 400. 
 
 in relation to action, 407. 
 Children : quasi-rights of, 425. 
 Christ: referred to, 390, 391. 
 Christian Ethics, 297-8. 
 Christianity, 30. 
 
 Christian love, 363-4. 
 
 Church : the, 324. 
 
 Circumstance, 85-8. 
 
 Civilization : the product of vir- 
 tues and vices, 411. 
 
 Clarke, 154, 175. 
 
 Clifford, W. K. : the " tribal 
 self," 115-6, 305. 
 
 on conscience, 117-8. 
 Code of honour, 8, 342. 
 Coit, Dr. S., 148. 
 Commandments, 8, 332. 
 
 relation to the virtues, 352-3. 
 
 the Jewish, 121, 352. 
 
 what they are, 365-0. 
 
 Common sense ethics, 183 seq. 
 Community: of goods, 317. 
 
 the civic, 323-4. 
 Comte, Auguste, 113, 448. 
 Conduct, 1-2, 58. 
 
 a fine art, 12, 14 seq. 
 
 the whole of life, 17. 
 
 definition of, 84-5. 
 
 - Spencer's view of, 85. 
 
 evolution of, 104 seq. 
 
 germs of, in lower animals, 
 
 105-7. 
 
 among savages, 107. 
 
 guidance of, by custom, 108. 
 , by law, 108. 
 
 , by ideas, 108-9. 
 
 as object of the moral judg- 
 
 ment, 135. 
 
 rules of, 349-50. 
 
 sanctions of, 260. 
 
 and emotion, 433 seq. 
 Conscience, 146, 186, 198. 
 
 origin of, 117-8. 
 
 individual, as moral standard, 
 
 122-3. 
 
 law of, 182 seq. 
 
 as sanction, 264. 
 
 authority of, 265-8. 
 
 and the social unity, 303 seq. 
 
 mystery of, 304. 
 
 pain of, 304. 
 
 attached to the highest system 
 
 of things, 305. 
 
 quasi-, 305-6. 
 
 stifling of, 307. 
 
 " case of," 341. 
 Conscientiousness, 376t 
 
 over-much, 389. 
 Consistency, 170, 191 seq. 
 Contract : right and obligation of, 
 
 318-9. 
 
 " from status to," 318. 
 
 "social," 318. 
 Conventional rules, 342-8. 
 Conversion, 375. 
 Corruption : social, 411. 
 Cosmopolitan, 297. 
 
 Courage : a Greek virtue, 363 .;., 
 420.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Courage : a cardinal virtue, 360 
 
 teq., 372. 
 Crime, 401-2. 
 
 as evidence of insanity, 305. 
 Custom, 1, 107-8, 343. 
 
 as the moral standard, 119* 
 
 120. 
 Cyrenaics : and Cynics, 151. 
 
 and Egoistic Hedonism, 215. 
 
 TYANTE: referred to, 438, 443. 
 *-* Darwin : referred to, 85, 242. 
 Decisiveness and perseverance 
 
 as virtues, 362, 364, 372. 
 Democritus, 148. 
 Descartes : referred to, 153, 389, 
 
 440. 
 
 Desirable : ambiguity of, 213. 
 Desire : general nature of, 43 teq. 
 
 and appetite, 46-7. 
 
 universe of, 47-9. 
 
 and wish, 52-3. 
 
 and pleasure, 67-9, 79-82. 
 
 the object of, 69 teq. 
 
 "disinterested," 72. 
 
 imaginative satisfaction of, 
 
 81-2. 
 
 higher and lower forms of, 
 
 208-9. 
 
 satisfaction of, ia happiness, 
 
 209-210. 
 Desires : conflict of, 49-51. 
 
 not for pleasure, 73-4. 
 
 satisfaction of, 209-210. 
 Determinists, 94. 
 
 and crime, 407. 
 Devas, C. S., 33. 
 Development : of the moral con- 
 sciousness, 111-2. 
 
 general nature of moral, 126. 
 
 of life, 235. 
 
 higher and lower views of, 
 
 235-6. 
 
 of moral life, 236. 
 
 explanation of, 237 teq. 
 Devil, the : an ass, 15. 
 Dewey, J. : conflict of desires, 
 
 61-2. 
 
 Dewey, J. : on motives, 65. 
 
 on actions of animals, 95. 
 
 on the good artisan, 347. 
 
 referred to, 203, 359. 
 Discipline: value of ascetic, 
 
 367. 
 
 Diihring : referred to, 248. 
 Aura/xu, 14. 
 Duties: my station and its, 
 
 346-8. 
 
 Duty, 162 teq. 
 Duty : happiness, perfection and, 
 
 159-160. 
 
 of perfect and imperfect obli- 
 
 gation, 343 teq. 
 
 and virtue, 345, 352. 
 
 and work, 346-7. 
 
 paradox of, 373. 
 
 Tf DUCATION : right and ob- 
 *-* ligationof, 319. 
 
 of character, 366 teq, 
 
 and psychology, 366. 
 
 moral, 369. 
 
 punishment aa agent of, 404. 
 Egoism: and altruism, 293. 
 
 conciliation of, with altruism, 
 
 293 teq. 
 
 Egoistic hedonism, 215-8. 
 
 Eliot, George : on the highest 
 happiness, 233. 
 
 Emancipation of slaves : and mo- 
 rality, 426-8. 
 
 Emerson : on self-consistency, 
 170. 
 
 quoted, 91, 247, 387, 415. 
 End, 2-4. 
 
 idea of, 85. 
 
 as self-realization, 233. 
 
 perfection rathe* than hap* 
 
 piness, 233. 
 'Erl/ryeux, 14. 
 Environment; change of, and 
 
 moral change, 426-8. 
 Epicureans : identified virtue with 
 
 happiness, 206. 
 
 and egoistic hedonism, 216. 
 Ethical hedonism, 212.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 463 
 
 Ethical hedonism, general mean- 
 ing of, 214 seq. 
 Ethos of a people, 354-7. 
 
 the universal, 354. 
 Evils: use of, 401-2. 
 Evolution : of conduct, 104 seq. 
 
 its application to morals, 234-5. 
 
 and theory of ethics, 235, 280 
 
 nq. 
 
 and Spencer's ethical theory, 
 
 237-241, 247. 
 
 social, 413-6. 
 
 Evolutionists: on ethics, 241 seq. 
 Example : influence of, 366. 
 Exceptions, 199. 
 Exploitation : of the poor, 412. 
 
 TRACTS ana -rules, 5-8. 
 - 1 - Failure: of life, 440-1. 
 
 of society, 441-2. 
 Fairbanks, Prof. A., 113. 
 Faith, 429-30, 451-2. 
 Family : the, 320. 
 
 violation of the sanctities of : 
 
 forbidden, 337. 
 Fanaticism, 57, 136-7, 185. 
 Faults : as moral agents, 387. 
 Feeling, 63, 196. 
 
 of " self-realisedness," 224. 
 
 of pleasure is sense of value, 
 
 223. 
 
 of satisfaction : differences of, 
 
 226. 
 
 Fichte, 198. 
 Fidelity, 365, 372. 
 Forgiveness, 410-1. 
 Form and matter, 191, 192 stq., 
 
 230-231. 
 
 FouillSe: referred to, 113, 458. 
 Fowler : referred to, 280. 
 Freedom : essential to morals, 
 
 91-2. 
 
 the tnm sense of, 93-4. 
 
 the highest 97-8. 
 
 a right of man, 315-6. 
 respect for, 314-5. 
 Friendship, 3-J5-6. 
 Froude, J. A. : quoted, 389. 
 
 GASSENDI: referred to, 
 15:5-4, 216. 
 
 Gauss : referred to, 164. 
 Genius: moral, 12, 350. 
 Giddings, F. H., 113. 
 Gilman, N. P. : referred to, 12. 
 Gizycki : referred to, 221 , 268, 324. 
 God: mediaeval conception of, 
 101. 
 
 goodness in, 165. 
 
 law of, 174, 258. 
 
 must be social, 292. 
 
 as all, 456. 
 
 as infinite and not infinite, 
 
 458. 
 Goethe: quoted, 310, 378, 381, 
 
 386. 
 
 Goldsmith : quoted, 64. 
 Golden Age, a, 413. 
 Good, 2-3. 
 
 will, the, 15-16, 128-130. 
 
 its relation to desire, 44. 
 
 habit, 84. 
 
 happiness the only, 218. 
 
 must be for somebody, 220. 
 
 is explained by the end, 247. 
 
 the only thing desired, 393-4. 
 
 the only reality, 449. 
 Goodness: an activity, 14. 
 
 and the beautiful, 177-8. 
 
 as adjustment, 242. 
 Goods : community of, 317. 
 Greek religion, 436. 
 Green : on the will, 54. 
 
 on the relation of pleasure tc 
 
 objects, 229. 
 
 his view of ethics, 248-250. 
 
 on good and evil actions, 379. 
 
 on Greek virtues, 420. 
 
 on self-denial, 420-2. 
 
 referred to, 377, 398. 
 Guyau, referred to. 104, 113,458. 
 Gymnastic and music, 386. 
 
 HABIT, 88-90, 106. 
 good, 84. 
 
 Hallam : referred to, 401; 
 Happiness, 171.
 
 464 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Happiness, the only pood, 218. 
 
 fallacy of the gcivral, 219. 
 
 its relation to the s>uif , 232. 
 
 is a relative term, 232. 
 
 the highest, 233. 
 
 is not the end, 233. 
 
 real meaning of, 253. 
 Heart: 198-9. 
 
 Heaven : and freedom of the will, 
 
 101. 
 Hedonism : psychological, 67-69. 
 
 paradox of , 69-71- 
 
 varieties of, 210-212. 
 
 ethical, in relation to psycho- 
 
 logical, 212-3. 
 
 egoistic, 215-8. 
 
 universalistic, 218 seq. 
 
 three forms of, 221. 
 
 general criticism of, 222 seq. 
 
 foundation of, 222. 
 
 gives matter without form, 
 
 231. 
 
 and motives to seek general 
 
 happiness, 261. 
 
 Hedonists: ethical and psycho- 
 logical, 211. 
 
 Hegel : on the planets, 94. 
 
 his view of "ought," 168. 
 
 his Logic, 286. 
 
 on the history of freedom, 315. 
 
 on the Greek gods, 438. 
 
 on art, 444. 
 
 " the had infinite," 447. 
 
 on the real and the rational, 
 
 452. 
 
 quoted, 52, 336, 346, 354, 427- 
 
 referred to, 284, 288, 310, 449, 
 
 450-1. 
 
 Heine, on Kant, 159-160. 
 Hell : paved with good intentions, 
 
 129. 
 
 and freedom of the will, 101. 
 Helvetius : referred to, 216. 
 Heraclitus: referred to, 147-8. 
 Herbart : referred to, 366. 
 
 quoted, 369. 
 Heredity, 101-2, 106. 
 Hobbes: referred to. 154, 158, 
 
 216. 
 
 Hoffding : referred to, 398. 
 Homer: referred to, 394, 438. 
 Honesty : more than mere truth* 
 
 fulness. 363. 
 
 Honour : code of, 8, 342. 
 Humanity : religion of, 448. 
 Hume : on reason and passion, 
 
 75-6. 
 
 on self, 96. 
 
 referred to, 318. 
 Hunger : not a desire, 81. 
 Hutcheson, 154, J78, 181. 
 
 on desires, 71. 
 Huxley : referred to, 223. 
 
 IDEAL: meaning of, 28-9. 
 the : study of, 380. 
 
 the universe of, 428-30. 
 
 validity of the, 432. 
 
 as real, 445. 
 
 Idealistic view of ethics, its bear- 
 ing on practice, 282 seq. 
 
 Ignorance : and responsibility, 
 408. 
 
 Imagination : and morality, 439- 
 440. 
 
 Imperative : the social, 309. 
 
 absolute, 350, 406. 
 
 with exception, 406. 
 Impulse, 57 : and responsibility, 
 
 408. 
 
 Inclination, 57. 
 Incompleteness : sense of, 418-9. 
 
 and need of religion, 439. 
 
 and morality, 439. 
 Indifference : liberty of, 90, 
 
 9.4. 
 Individual: and society, 291 
 
 seq. 
 
 life, 374 seq. 
 Individualism : and Socialism, 
 
 326-7. 
 
 commandment of, 327. 
 
 the higher, 374-5. 
 Inducement, 62-64. 
 
 Infinite, the: demand for, 444, 
 446. 
 
 "the bad, "447.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 465 
 
 Infinites : the two, 445-6. 
 Insanity : exempts from respon- 
 sibility, 407. 
 Instinct, 105-6, 248-9. 
 Institutions : social, 320 teq. 
 
 unsectarian ethical, 324. 
 
 and rights, 333. 
 
 And duties, 333. 
 
 and virtues, 352, 366. 
 Intention : meaning of, 69 teq. 
 
 relation to motive, 64 teq. 
 
 the good : and virtue, 398. 
 
 good and bad, 399. 
 lut'uitionisiu, 183 1*9., 277-8. 
 
 TACOBI, 195, 198-9. 
 
 ** James : referred to, 867, 
 
 450-1. 
 Janet, P. : referred to, 188, 198, 
 
 341-2. 
 
 Jansenists : referred to, 205. 
 Jesuits : referred to, 340. 
 Jevons, 214. 
 
 Jewish law summed up, 341. 
 Jews : commandments of, 121, 
 
 352. 
 
 and moral laws, 124. 
 
 the religion of, 447- 
 John, Epistle of: quoted, 410. 
 Judgment : the artistic, 16. 
 
 the moral, 114 teq. 
 
 the reflective, 123. 
 
 on act and agent, 130 seq. 
 Jurisprudence and Ethics, 349. 
 Justice, 15. 
 
 social, 310-11. 
 
 note on, 329-30. 
 
 use of the term, 344. 
 
 as social virtue, 303, 372. 
 
 KANT: on the goodwill, 16- 
 16, 128, 190-1. 
 
 on idea of end, 86. 
 
 on love not a duty, 91. 
 
 on " ought " and " can," 91. 
 
 bin life, 169-160. 
 
 JU. 
 
 Kant : on the categorical impera- 
 tive, 169, 191 ttq. 
 
 on conscience, 186, 278. 
 
 his categories, 188. 
 
 his view of the moral reason, 
 
 190 <??., 268-9. 
 
 undue rigorism of his system, 
 
 195 teq. 
 
 his dualism, 196, 201. 
 
 his view of humanity as an 
 
 end, 201. 
 
 note on his views, 203-6. 
 
 on duties of perfect and im- 
 
 perfect obligation, 344-6. 
 
 on the two infinities, 445-6. 
 
 referred to, 25, 276, 278, 466. 
 Knowledge and virtue, 88. 
 Kiilpa : referred to, 73. 
 
 LABOUR: right of man to. 
 316. 
 
 duty of, 338-9. 
 Law, 162 eq. 
 
 positive : as the moral, standard, 
 
 120-1. 
 
 the moral, 121. 
 
 of reason, 187 teq. 
 
 authority of, 259. 
 
 and public opinion, 311-2. 
 
 punishment a vindication of, 
 
 304. 
 
 th supreme, 341-2. 
 Laws: moral, 162 teq. 
 
 of nature, 163-4. 
 
 of political economy, 164, 
 
 170. 
 
 of ethics, 165, 171. 
 
 nature of moral, 332-4. 
 
 conventional, 342-3. 
 Liberty : human, 95. 
 
 of indifference is absurd, 90. 
 
 Milton on, 316. 
 
 Life : development of, 235. 
 
 the moral, 291 ttq. 
 
 right and obligation of, 314-5. 
 
 sacredness of, 315. 
 
 respect for, 334. 
 
 the monastic, 381. 
 
 30
 
 466 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Life : the active and the contem- 
 plative, 384 seq. 
 
 relation of the inner to the 
 
 outer, 386 seq. 
 
 deepening of the spiritual, 
 
 419-20. 
 
 the moral : and environment, 
 
 426-8. 
 
 failure of, 440-1. 
 
 Locke : his view of ethics, 154, 
 189. 
 
 his use of term ' idea,' 28. 
 Logic, 6, 10, 18, 21, 24. 
 
 and ethica, 28-30, 189, 286 
 
 seq. 
 
 Lowell, J. R., 7. 
 Loyalty, 372. 
 Luther : referred to, 401. 
 Luxuries, 323. 
 Lying : as the essence of sin, 189. 
 
 forbidden, 337-8. 
 
 MACAULAY: referred to, 
 307. 
 
 MacCunn : referred to, 34. 
 Mach: on Instinct, 181. 
 Maine : on Bentham, 160. 
 
 referred to, 318. 
 
 Man : not a mere animal, 291. 
 
 in relation to social surround- 
 
 ings, 298 seq. 
 
 the virtuous, 352. 
 
 good and bad, 356. 
 
 the virtuous : and the world, 
 
 388-9. 
 
 the virtuous : an-l his environ- 
 
 ment, 389. 
 
 the virtuous : and success, 
 
 402. 
 
 the vicious : and punishment, 
 
 402. 
 
 cause of his relative unhappi- 
 
 ness, 415. 
 
 the ideal, 41?. 
 Mandeville: referred to, 216. 
 Manicheism, 448. 
 
 Marsh.iU, Prof. A. : referred to, 
 173, 381, 414. 
 
 Martinnau's view of motives, 
 
 131-3. 
 
 Master : and servant, 425-6. 
 Mathematics, 164. 
 Matter : and form, 191, 192 $eq. t 
 
 230, 231. 
 McTaggart, 453. 
 Mediaeval ethics, 153. 
 Metaphysics, 24. 
 and ethics, 30-1. 
 
 ultimate problem of, 451-2. 
 Mill, J. S. : on pleasure as the 
 
 object of desire, 68. 
 
 on parts of happiness, 74-5. 
 
 his view of motives and in- 
 
 tentions, 133-4. 
 
 confused egoistic and uni- 
 versalistic hedonism, 211. 
 
 exponent of utilitarianism, 
 
 218. 
 
 argument for utilitarianism, 
 
 218-9. 
 
 on quantity and quality of 
 
 pleasures, 225. 
 
 on higher happiness, 232. 
 
 on capacity for enjoyment, 
 
 232. 
 
 on justice, 329-30. 
 
 on sanctions, 259, 264-5. 
 
 on the finitude of God, 448. 
 
 quoted, 180, 299. 
 
 referred to, 96, 164, 299, 303, 
 
 344, 455. 
 Milton : on love of freedom, 316. 
 
 on religion as a " dividual 
 
 movable," 382. 
 
 on cloistered virtue, 390. 
 
 on Satan, 394, 395, 415. 
 
 quoted, 146, 400. 
 Moral genius, 12, 350. 
 
 imperatives, 92. 
 
 ideas and ethical ideas, 110. 
 
 consciousness : development of 
 
 111-2. 
 
 law, the, 121. 
 
 conflict, 121-2. 
 
 judgment : growth of, 114. 
 
 judgment, significance of, 127
 
 INDEX. 
 
 467 
 
 M'-ral judgment: object of, 128, 
 13o seq. 
 
 judgment: subject of, 138 
 
 teg. 
 
 connoisseur, the, 139 seq. 
 
 sense, 140, 154, 177 sea., 
 
 274-5. 
 
 reason, 190 stq. 
 
 life : a process of growth, 234 
 
 seq. 
 
 ideals : origin of, 244. 
 
 laws : nature of, 332 seq. 
 
 philosopher, the : the task of, 
 
 350. 
 - - reformer, 390 seq. 
 
 evil, 393-6. 
 
 pathology, 393 seq. 
 
 sanctions : 260-5. 
 
 progress, 413. 
 
 universe, the, 416. 
 
 change, and change of en- 
 
 vironment, 240, 416-8. 
 
 life and religion, 436, 450-1. 
 Morality : and religion, 433 seq. 
 Morals : freedom essential to 
 
 91-2. 
 
 necessity essential to, 92-3. 
 
 and evolution, 234. 
 
 an adjustment, 238 seq. 
 
 natural selection in, 243-4. 
 
 minor, 342-3. 
 
 primitive and modern, com- 
 
 pared, 413-4. 
 Morgan, Prin. C. L., 105, 106, 
 
 247, 249. 
 Morris, Wm. : referred to, 317, 
 
 385. 
 
 Moses: referred to, 391. 
 Motive : meaning of, 62 seq. 
 
 relation of, to intention, 64 
 ' seq. 
 
 relation of, to pleasure, 66-7. 
 
 reason as a, 76-6. 
 
 constitution of, 77-8. 
 
 as object of the moral judg- 
 
 ment, 134 seq. 
 
 and actions, 317. 
 
 as sanction, 260. 
 
 the right ethical, 260-1. 
 
 Motive : the political and econo- 
 mic, in relation to morality, 
 416-8. 
 
 " Mrs. Grundy," 342. 
 
 Muirhead, J. H. : on Kantian 
 ethics, 203, 206. 
 
 on feeling, 306. 
 
 on a good and a bad artisan, 
 
 347. 
 
 on courage and temperance, 
 
 362. 
 
 on generosity, 363. 
 
 on resolution, 393. 
 
 his list of corrupt social in- 
 
 stitutions, 412. 
 
 on emotion and religion, 433-4. 
 
 quoted, 312. 
 
 referred to, 186, 306, 307, 360, 
 
 368. 
 Music : in education, 386. 
 
 Carlyle on, 444. 
 Must: 167-9, 256 w?. 
 
 ^APOLEON : referred to, 385. 
 *M Natural selection : in morals, 
 
 243 *eq. 
 
 Nature : law of, 1 74 seq. 
 Necessitarians, 94. 
 Necessity : essential to morals, 
 
 92-3. 
 
 Nirvana, 447. 
 Novalis : on character, 57. 
 Normative science, 20-22. 
 Ethics as a, 4 seq. 
 
 /ABJECT : of desire, 64 seq. 
 ^* its relation to pleasure, 
 217. 
 
 pleasure inseparable from, 
 
 2-27-9. 
 Obligation, 270. 
 
 and rights, 313-4, 333. 
 
 ultimate meaning of. 319. 
 
 and commandments, 332. 
 
 duties of perfect and imper- 
 
 fect, 343 M?.
 
 468 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Obligation : new, 423-8. 
 Ought, 167-9, 171, 256 teq. 
 
 and " can," 91. 
 
 hedonistic use of, 212. 
 
 Bentham on, 213. 
 
 meaning of, 254. 
 
 as the social imperative, 309. 
 
 absolute, 349. 
 Owen, Robert, 90. 
 
 "PEDAGOGICS and ethics, 
 
 33-4. 
 Pain: aa negative of pleasure, 
 
 72-3. 
 
 Pnley, 258-9. 
 
 Pantheism : the deeper, 447. 
 Paradox : of hedonism, 69 teq. 
 
 of duty, 375. 
 Passion : 157. 
 
 Paul: referred to, 312, 335, 
 397. 
 
 quoted, 97. 
 
 People : the ethos of a, 354-7. 
 Perception, 180-1. 
 Perfection, 234 teq, 
 
 the true end, 233. 
 
 explanations of, 236 teq., 247 
 
 teq. 
 
 "counsels of," 429. 
 Perseverance, 362, 364, 372. 
 Pessimism : ground for, 440-1. 
 Pessimists, 3. 
 
 Pfleiderer, Prof. : referred to, 436. 
 Philanthropy, 196. 
 Philosophy : and ethics, 17, 30-1. 
 Physical science : and ethics, 25. 
 'Plain man,' 195. 
 Plato : his view of virtue as an 
 art, 15. 
 
 his Ideal theory, 152. 
 
 his view of ethics, 295-6. 
 
 on community of goods, 317. 
 
 on the virtues, 358-9, 373. 
 
 referred to, 268, 284, 320, 388, 
 
 440, 459. 
 Pleasure : as a motive, 66-7. 
 
 u the only object of deaire, 
 
 Pleasure : paradox of, 69 teq. 
 
 ambiguity of, 69, 72. 
 
 of pursuit, 70, 79-82. 
 
 pain as negative of, 72-3. 
 
 and pleasures, 72-5, 217. 
 
 of progressive attainment, 79 
 
 teq. 
 
 and desire : (note on), 79-82. 
 
 is satisfaction of appetite, 209- 
 
 210. 
 
 quantity of, 214-5. 
 
 greatest, 214-5. 
 
 intensity and duration of, 214. 
 
 objective, content of, 217. 
 
 only reasonable thing to seek, 
 
 218. 
 
 most intense, preferable, 218. 
 
 of others and our own, 220. 
 
 as sense of value, 223-4. 
 
 inseparable from object, 227-9. 
 
 no calculus of, 229-230. 
 Pleasures : quality of, 225-6. 
 
 sum of : is not pleasure, 229- 
 
 230. 
 
 Poetry : in religion, 449-50. 
 Political Economy, 6, 21-2, 271. 
 
 its relation to ethics, 32-3. 
 Politics: and ethics, 31-2, 295. 
 Pope : quoted, 58, 396. 
 Practical reason : dualism of, 
 
 221. 
 Practice: bearing of theory on, 
 
 273 teq. 
 
 Priggishness, 369. 
 Progress : respect for, 338-9. 
 
 moral, 413 teq. 
 Propagandism, 424. 
 
 Property : right and obligation of, 
 316-8. 
 
 respect for, 336. 
 Psychological hedonism, 67-9. 
 
 in relation to ethical, 212-3. 
 
 Psychology : and ethics, 27-8, 
 
 36-7. 
 
 and education, 33. 
 
 and universe of desire, 61, 68. 
 
 and the mind, 132. 
 
 and education of character, 
 
 366.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 469 
 
 Public opinion : and law, 311-2. 
 Punishment, 402-4. 
 
 origin of, 403. 
 
 justification of, 403, 406. 
 
 as a vindication of law, 406. 
 
 retributive theory of, 406. 
 Purpose, 57. 
 
 Pursuit : pleasures of, 70, 79-82. 
 
 REAL, the : as ideal, 445. 
 Reality : as the good, 449. 
 Reason : and will, 75-7. 
 
 and passion, 157 seq. 
 
 law of, 157 seq. 
 
 authority of, 268 seq. 
 Reflection : and action, 109. 
 
 and the moral life, 374 seq. 
 
 on conduct and motives, 376-9. 
 Reform : punishment as agent of, 
 
 404. 
 
 Reformation, 409. 
 Reformer : the moral, 390. 
 
 is often inconsiderate, 396. 
 
 need of, 412. 
 
 function of, 418-9. 
 Religion : as a division of labour, 
 
 381-2. 
 
 and the moral life, 436. 
 
 in relation to art, 436-9. 
 
 the ideals of, 437. 
 
 and reality, 437-9. 
 
 origin of, 439. 
 
 the necessity of, 439-40. 
 
 the first, 446-7. 
 
 the second, 447-8. 
 
 the third, 448-9. 
 
 of humanity, 448. 
 
 and superstition, 449-50. 
 
 ethical significance of, 450 uq. 
 Remorse, 408. 
 
 Renan : quoted, 98. 
 Responsibility, 101-3,407-8. 
 Revenge, 405. 
 Reverence, 372, 445. 
 Reward : origin of, 403. 
 Rhetoric, 166. 
 
 R\ddlf of tht Sphinx: referred to, 
 448. 
 
 Right, 1-2, 
 
 the : and the good, 168 uq. 
 Righteousness, 171. 
 
 Rights: and obligations, 313-4, 
 333. 
 
 of man : denned and discussed, 
 
 314 seq. 
 
 ultimate meaning of, 319. 
 
 quasi, 427. 
 
 Ritchie, Prof.D. G. : referred to, 
 
 64. 
 Rossignol, J. E. Le : on Wollas- 
 
 ton, 189. 
 
 Rousseau : referred to, 315, 318. 
 Royce, Prof. : referred to, 304. 
 Rules, 2, 5, 7. 
 
 Greeks no code of moral, 332. 
 
 conflict of : inevitable, 339. 
 
 conventional, 342-3. 
 
 and interest, 347. 
 
 cut-and-dried, 349. 
 
 of conduct : (note on), 349- 
 
 61.' 
 
 Ruskin : his view of economics, 
 33. 
 
 on taste, 178. 
 
 on honesty in art, 363. 
 
 referred to, 47, 185, 374, 385, 
 
 392, 412, 414. 
 Rutherford, Mark : quoted, 399. 
 
 SANCTION, 98, 260 seq. 
 as motive, 260. 
 
 the " Pragmatic," 260. 
 
 kinds of, 262-4. 
 Satisfaction : subsequent to want, 
 
 71-2. 
 
 imaginative, 81-2. 
 
 of desires, 209-210. 
 
 different feelings of, 226. 
 Schiller: his criticism of Kant, 
 
 196-7. 
 
 referred to, 342. 
 
 quoted, 443. 
 
 Schopenhauer : referred to, 92. 
 Science : positive and normative, 
 
 5-6, 20-22. 
 
 practical, 8.
 
 470 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Science: and art, 11-13. 
 
 physical : its relation to ethics, 
 
 25. 
 Seeley, Sir J. : quoted, 119-120, 
 
 121. 
 Self : a man's, 95. 
 
 of a higher kind, 97. 
 
 the true : is the rational, 98. 
 
 the " tribal," 116-7. 
 
 the " ideal," 144-5. 
 
 and happiness. 232-3. 
 
 realisation of : as the end, 
 
 233. 
 
 the social, 291-2. 
 Self-consistency : real meaning 
 
 of, 201-2, 252. 
 Self-denial, 420. 
 Self-examination, 378. 
 
 and the monastic life, 381. 
 Self-realisation : as the end, 233. 
 
 through self-sacrifice, 294-5. 
 
 test of social progress, 326. 
 
 the fundamental law, 341. 
 Sense : moral, 140, 154, 177 *eq. 
 Sermon on the mount, 8. 
 Servant and master, 425-6. 
 Seth, Prof. A. : referred to, 441. 
 Shaftesbury, 154, 178-9, 181, 
 
 259. 
 
 Shakespeare : quoted, 3, 53, 64, 
 56, 65, 123, 395, 400, 410. 
 
 Shand, A. F. : referred to, 87. 
 
 Sidgwick, H. : on Mill's Utilitari- 
 anism, 68-9. 
 
 on the paradox of hedonism, 
 
 69-71. 
 
 on the pleasures of pursuit, 70- 
 
 71, 79-81. 
 
 his relation to Kant, 194. 
 
 on ethical and psychological 
 
 hedonism, 212. 
 
 on egoistic hedonism, 216. 
 
 on seeking pleasure, 218. 
 
 his proof of universalistic he- 
 
 donism, 220 ieq. 
 
 on conditions of pleasure, 
 
 229. 
 
 on justice, 330. 
 
 referred to, 61, 194, 265, 268. 
 
 Simmel, Georg : his view of 
 Ethics, 281-2. 
 
 referred to, 92, 103, 145, 243, 
 
 269, 290, 317. 
 Sin, 398 teq. 
 
 original, 101. 
 
 "besetting," 380. 
 
 the shadow of virtue, 396. 
 
 never an impossibility, 396. 
 
 and vice, 397. 
 
 Slavery : forbidden, 318, 335-6. 
 Slaves, emancipation of: and 
 
 morality,; 426-8. 
 Smith. Adam : his view of ethics, 
 
 140 seq. 
 
 on books of casuistry, 340. 
 
 on positive merit, 344. 
 
 on morals of Charles II. 'B time, 
 
 356. 
 
 referred to, 341, 348, 403. 
 Social philosophy, 32, 310. 
 
 equilibrium, the, 242. 
 
 unity and conscience, 303 seq. 
 
 imperative, the, 309. 
 
 contract, 318. 
 
 institutions, 320 teq. 
 
 progress, 326. 
 
 order : respect for, 336-7. 
 
 corruption, 411. 
 
 evolution, 413-6. 
 Socialism : and individualism, 
 
 326-7. 
 
 commandment of, 327. 
 Society: and the individual, 291 
 
 ieq. 
 
 a unity, 292. 
 
 as the ethical environment, 
 
 299. 
 
 an organism, 300-2. 
 
 war against, 395. 
 - failure of, 441-2. 
 Sociology, 290. 
 
 and ethics, 27-8, 37-8. 
 
 (note on), 113. 
 
 Socrates : on virtue as knowledge, 
 77, 88. 
 
 his ethics, 149 seq. 
 
 referred to, 268, 332, 388-9. 
 Sophists, 148-9.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 47 
 
 Sophocles : referred to, 332. 
 Sorley, Prof. : referred to, 246, 
 
 441. 
 
 Souls: beautiful, 382-3. 
 Spencer, H : bin view of conduct, 
 
 85. 
 
 on development of life, 235. 
 
 his ethics, 237-241, 247. 
 
 on the conciliation of egoism 
 
 and altruism, 293-4. 
 
 on the ideal man, 309. 
 
 referred to, 161, 281, 312, 334, 
 
 447. 
 
 Spinoza : on blessedness, 227, 
 253. 
 
 referred to, 157, 447. 
 Spiritual life : deepening of, 419- 
 
 20. 
 
 Spontaneity : animal, 94. 
 Springs of action, 132, 
 State : the, 325. 
 
 and duties, 345. 
 Status; and contract, 318. 
 Stephen, L. : on Samuel Clarke's 
 
 Ethics, 176. 
 
 on a moral rule, 242. 
 
 on " social tissues," 301. 
 
 on the family, 321. 
 
 quoted, 171. 
 Stoics: ideal of, 161. 
 
 view of happiness, 206. 
 
 estimate of a good man, 297. 
 
 referred to, 174, 177, 268. 
 Stout, GK F. : on appetite, 45. 
 
 on voluntary action, 58. 
 
 referrred to, 114. 
 Subordination: in the family, 20. 
 
 in the workshop, 21-2. 
 Summum bonum, 3, 14. 
 Superstition: andreligion,449-50. 
 Syllogism : the moral, 369 seq. 
 
 HPASTE: the moral, 179-180. 
 - 1 - Taylor, A. E. : referred to, 
 
 252. 
 Teleology : need of, 245 seq. 
 
 and tipencer'a view of evolu- 
 
 tion. 247, 
 
 Temperance : as a virtue, 359 eq. , 
 
 372, 420 seq. 
 
 Theory : and practice, 273 seq. 
 Thugs, 7. 
 Titchener, E. B. : referred to, 73, 
 
 209. 
 Truth, respect for, 337-8 
 
 in religion and art, 437-8. 
 
 in religion, 449. 
 
 Types of ethical theory, 156 teq, 
 
 TTNIFORMITIES, 163-4. 
 ^ Universe : of desire, 47-9. 
 
 higher and lower, 208-9, 250. 
 
 and satisfaction, 210. 
 
 the highest, is completely 
 
 rational, 253. 
 
 the social, 299-300. 
 
 of moral activities, 355. 
 
 broad and narrow, 393. 
 
 moral: and remorse, 418. 
 
 bringing up to a high, 410. 
 
 the moral, 416. 
 
 contradiction in our inner,' 
 
 417. 
 
 the ideal, 428-30. 
 Unknowable : the, 447. 
 Utilitarianism : Mill an exponent 
 
 of, 218-9. 
 
 theory of, 218 seq., 268. 
 
 as pursuit of the useful, 221. 
 
 end of, 222. 
 
 practical value of, 278-280. 
 
 its motives to seek the general 
 
 happiness, 261. 
 
 Utopias: relation to morality, 
 428-9. 
 
 "\7ALUE: and pleasure, 222 
 seq. 
 
 sense of, 223. 
 
 measure of, 224. 
 Vice. 397. 
 
 Vices : as virtues of early civil- 
 isation, 294. 
 
 classification of, 398. 
 Virtue : a kind of knowledge, 
 
 88.
 
 47 
 
 INDEX, 
 
 Virtue: tne of trim, 343, 358. 
 
 and duty, 3.52. 
 
 nature of, 358. 
 Virtues : 352 eq. 
 
 and commandments, 352-8. 
 
 and states of society, 353. 
 
 relative to social functions, 357. 
 
 the cardinal. 358 xcq., 372-3. 
 
 self -regarding and altruistic, 
 
 360. 
 
 four clauses of, 362. 
 
 what are they 365-6. 
 
 inner side of, 379. 
 
 as outer fact and inward 
 
 character. 423. 
 
 Voluntary action : nature of, 98- 
 100. 
 
 STALLAGE, w. : 211, 452. 
 
 Want : and appetite, 44 
 uq. 
 
 prior to satisfaction, 71-2. 
 War : when justified, 412. 
 Ward, Dr. : quoted, 87. 
 
 referred to, 209. 
 
 Ward, Mrs. Humphry: quoted, 
 368. 
 
 Watson, Prof., 211. 452. 
 
 Wedgwood, Miss : on the in- 
 fluence of moral ideals, 
 428-9. 
 
 Wedgwood, ITus : quoted, 306. 
 Whitman, Walt: quoted, 374. 
 
 385, 414. 
 Will: the good, 15-16, 128-130. 
 
 and art, 16. 
 
 and wish, 53-4. 
 
 and act, 54-7, 129. 
 
 force of, 88. 
 
 and character, 57-8. 
 
 and reason, 75-7. 
 
 freedom of, 90-1. 
 
 that wills nothing, 195. 
 
 higher and lower forms of, 
 
 208-9. 
 
 Wisdom: a virtue, 359, 362, 
 372. 
 
 practical, 365. 
 
 for one's self and others, 
 
 365. 
 Wish : an effective desire, 52. 
 
 and will, 53-4. 
 Wollaston : referred to, 189. 
 Women : rights of, 321, 419, 422, 
 
 427. 
 
 Wonder : a religion, 439. 
 Wordsworth : quoted, 29, 108, 
 
 196, 384, 390, 440. 
 Work : and duty, 344. 
 Workshop : the, 321-2. 
 World: the, and the yirtuoul 
 
 man, 388-9. 
 Worship, what it IB, 437.
 
 Entertainments for Every Occasion. Ideas, games, 
 charades, tricks, plans for keeping those present 
 entertained, on whatever occasion, whether a party, 
 a festival, a bazaar, an entertainment, or merely 
 " our own folks " or an Centre nous." $1.25. 
 
 The Humorous Speaker. The choicest, most recent 
 humor that lends itself to recitation. Easily the best 
 collection that has been made. The selections are 
 chosen because they are good literature, and because 
 they are good recitations. Unhackneyed material 
 most of it from recently copyrighted books, for which 
 special permission has been secured. A hundred and 
 twenty-five selection?, about 500 pages. $1.25. 
 
 Commencement Parts. " Efforts " for all occasions. 
 Models for every possible occasion in high-school and 
 college career, every one of the "efforts" being 
 what some fellow has stood on his feet and actually 
 delivered on a similar occasion not what the com- 
 piler would say if he should happen to be called 
 on for an ivy song or a response to a toast, or what 
 not ; but what the fellow himself, when his turn came, 
 did say ! Invaluable, indispensable to those prepar- 
 ing any kind of " effort. " Unique. $1.50. 
 
 Contains models of the salutatory, the valedictory, orations, 
 class poems, class songs, class mottoes, class will, ivy poem and 
 song, Dux's speech ; essays and addresses for flag day, the sea- 
 sons, national and other holidays; after-dinner speeches and 
 responses to toasts. Also models for occasional addresses so- 
 cial, educational, political, religious. Also models for superin- 
 tendents' and principals' addresses to graduating class, debating 
 team, educational conference ; on dedication of school building, 
 public building, library ; for holidays, festival days, and scores 
 of social and other occasions. Also themes for essays, and lists 
 of subjects for orations, essays, toasts. 
 
 College Men's 3-Minute Declamations. Material 
 with vitality in it for prize speaking, i^th edit. $1.00. 
 
 College Maids' 3-Minute Readings. Up-to-date re- 
 citations from living men and women. On the plan 
 of the popular College Men's 3-minute Declamations, 
 and on the same high plane. Twelfth edition. $1.00. 
 
 Pieces for Prize Speaking Contests. Volume I. 
 Over one hundred pieces that have actually taken 
 prizes in prize speaking contests. Successful. $1.25. 
 
 Pieces for Prize Speaking Contests. Vol.11. $1.25 
 Pieces for Every Occasion. "Special days." $1.25 
 Famous Poems Explained. (Barbe). $1.00.
 
 How to Attract and Hold an Audience. Every stu- 
 dent in college or school, every lawyer, every teacher, 
 every clergyman, every man or woman occupying an 
 official position, every citizen and every youth who is 
 likely ever to have occasion in committee, or in 
 public, to enlist the interest, to attract and hold the 
 attention of one or more hearers, and convince them 
 every person who ever has to, or is likely to have 
 to "speak" to one or more listeners will find in our 
 new book a clear, concise, complete handbook which 
 will enable him to succeed / $1 .00. 
 
 Thorough, concise, methodical, replete with common sense, 
 complete. In his logical method, in the crystal-like lucidity of 
 his style, in his forceful, incisive, penetrating mastery of his 
 subject, the author has at one hound placed himself on a plane 
 with the very ablest teacher-authors of his day. 
 
 Fenno's Science and Art of Elocution. Standard. 
 Probably the most successful of its kind. $1.25. 
 
 The Power of Speech, How to Acquire It. $ 1 .25. 
 
 A comprehensive system of vocal expression. Thor- 
 ough and practical instruction in the use of the speak- 
 ing voice, embracing deep breathing, articulation, 
 modulation, emphasis and delivery; vocal coloring, 
 interpretation of the written word, the conveying of 
 thought by means of vocal expression, and the prin- 
 ciples of oratory and dramatic art. 
 
 The Psychology of Public Speaking. A scientific 
 treatment of the practical needs of the public speak- 
 er. A worth-while book. $1.25. 
 
 How to Use the Voice in Reading and Speaking. 
 By Ed. Amherst Ott, head of the School of Oratory, 
 Drake University. Suitable for class work. $1.25. 
 
 How to Gesture. E. A. Ott. New///*;, edit. $1.00. 
 
 Constitution of U. S. In English, German and 
 
 French. Paper, 25c. ; cloth, 50c. 
 
 Constitution of U. S. t with Index (Thorpe's Pock- 
 et Edition), 35c. 
 
 Brief History of Civilization (Blackmar), $1.25. 
 The Changing Values of English Speech. $1.25. 
 The Worth of Words. (Bell). $1.25. 
 The Religion of Beauty. (Bell). $1.25.
 
 Price $1.50 postpaid 
 
 Both Sides of Live Questions Fully Discussed 
 
 This book has stood the test of years and is still in 
 demand. Besides the debates written out in full it 
 contains chapters on How to Organize a Society and 
 Rules for Governing Debates, also a list of Two Hun- 
 dred and Fifty Questions for Debate. 
 
 Some of tJie Questions Discussed are : 
 Should Cuba Be Annexed to the United States ? 
 
 Resolved, That the United States Should Adopt Penny 
 Postage. 
 
 Should the Government of the United States Own and 
 Control the Railroads ? 
 
 Resolved, That Woman Suffrage Should Be Adopted by 
 an Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 Resolved, That Tariff for Revenue Only is of Greater 
 Benefit to the People of the United States than a 
 Protective Tariff. 
 
 Resolved, That the Government cf the United States 
 Should Own and Control the Telephone and Tele- 
 graph Systems. 
 
 Is Immigration Detrimental to the United States ? 
 Are Large Department Stores an Injury to the Country ? 
 
 Should the President and Senate cf the United States 
 Be Elected by Direct Vote of the People ? 
 
 Resolved, That Trusts and Monopolies are a Positive 
 Injury to the People Financially. 
 
 Resolved, That Cities Should Own and Control All the 
 Public Franchises Now Conferred Upon Corpora- 
 tions.
 
 Instantaneous Arbitrator. Howe's Parliamentary 
 Usage. In this book, by an ingenious visual ar- 
 rangement, the chairman, the speaker, the member 
 who next has the floor, or any one else, has before 
 his eyes a complete view of every rule needed in the 
 conduct of any meeting. All rules, all exceptions, 
 every procedure instantly accessible. Everything 
 in sight. Does not have to be carried in the hand to 
 and from meeting, but slips easily into and out of 
 the pocket. Exactly suited to "women's clubs, too, 
 being used and recommended by officers of the Gen- 
 eral Federation, and the W . C. T. U. 50 cents. 
 
 New Parliamentary Manual. By Edmond Palmer, 
 member of the Chicago Bar. Improves upon other 
 parliamentary works by determining the reasons, 
 the logic of the rules. Again by arranging the rules 
 according to their importance in simple sequence, 
 any man or woman, any boy or girl, is enabled actu- 
 ally to conduct a meeting without uproar, without 
 delays, without confusion, or even friction. 75 cents. 
 
 This Manual (75 cents), giving the reasons, along with Howe's 
 Handbook (jo cents) , giving all the rules at a glance by means of 
 a clever bird's-eye device, together provide an absolutely com- 
 plete and perfect equipment. The. two books for ONE DOLLAR 
 if ordered at one time. 
 
 How to Organize and Conduct a Meeting. 75c. 
 
 American Civics. Dwells sufficiently upon the his- 
 torical development as well as the theory of our 
 governmental institutions, but also treats adequately 
 the actual workings of party organizations &n&arty 
 methods. Questions of present interest are intro- 
 duced, and in many instances the arguments on both 
 sides of questions still open to debate. $1.00. 
 
 SOME OF THE SUBJECTS DISCUSSED 
 
 Municipal Home Rule Municipal Ownership 
 
 Initiative and Referendum Trial by Jury 
 
 The Machine Women Suffrage 
 
 ^X'and Proportional Ca~.nJNomln.tl-. 
 
 ClvU | P e r rvice Reform Committee System 
 
 The Railroad Problem The Panama Canal 
 
 Ship Subsidies Our Insular Possessions 
 
 American Civus explains the government in New York State 
 and New York City in a way to enable instructive comparisons 
 of the contrasts and the similarities with other states ; similarly 
 the New England, the Southern, and the Western states.
 
 How to Prepare for a Civil Service Examination, 
 
 with recent Examination Questions and the An- 
 swers. Cloth, 560 pages. $2.00. 
 
 Craig's Common School Questions, with Answers. 
 Enlarged Edition. $1.50. 
 
 Henry's High School Questions, with Ans. $1.50. 
 SherrilPsNew Normal Questions, with Ans. $1.50. 
 Quizzism and Its Key (Southwick). $1.00. 
 1001 Questions and Answers, u vols , each 50c. 
 
 Theory and Practice Teaching. Revised. 
 
 United States History, Revised. 
 
 General History. Revised. 
 
 Geography. Revised. 
 
 English Grammar. Revised. 
 
 Readinj? and Orthography. Revised. 
 
 Physiology and Hygiene. Revised. 
 
 Botany. f*'nv. 
 
 Natural Philosophy. New. 
 
 Arithmetic. Revised. 
 
 Test Examples in Arithmetic, with Answers. Revised. 
 
 Moritz's 1000 Questions. For Entrance Exam. N.Y. 
 High Schools, College of City of N. Y., St. Francis 
 Xavier College, West Point, Annapolis, and Civil 
 Service. Paper. 30 cents. Answers, 50 cents. 
 
 Recent Entrance Examination Questions. For the 
 
 College of the City of i\e\sr York, St. Francis Xavier 
 College, Columbia Coll -ge, the Il'gh Schools, Re- 
 gents' Examinations, West Point, Annapolis, the Liv- 
 il Service. Paper. 30 cents. Answers, jo cents. 
 
 Astronomy. Smith's Illustrated Quarto. 32 full 
 page plates. 90 cents. 
 
 Readings from Popular Novels. $1.25. 
 Bad English Corrected. (Hathaway). Paper. 30c. 
 Caucasian Legends. (In English). $1.00. 
 Handbook of Mythology. (Edwards). 95 cents. 
 Institutional History of the U. S. (Joseph). $1.50.
 
 50 English Classics Briefly Outlined. Contains a 
 brief analysis, in outline, v* fifty of the masterpieces 
 of our language, in the fields of the drama, fiction, 
 narrative poetry, lyric poetry, essays and address- 
 es, and covering many of the "College Entrance 
 Requirements." $1.25. 
 
 Most books of the sort are mere question books; this book 
 gives you the answers, in just the shape you want them. The 
 book is absolutely unique. There are no others like It. 
 
 How to Study Literature. A novel, a poem, a his- 
 tory, a biography, a drama, an oration, a sermon, or 
 any other literary production, if read or studied as 
 this book tells one now to read and study, becomes a 
 subject which one can converse or write about in a 
 thoroughly intelligent way. Contains lists of the 
 right words to designate the author's style, quality 
 or other characteristics. 75 cents. 
 
 Enables you to talk about a book as if you had really steed it up. 
 Just the thing for literary societies, reading circles, teacher, pu- 
 pil ; also for anyone who desires to retain a symmetrical impres- 
 sion of the books he reads. Eight editions in first ten months. 
 
 Handbook of Literary Criticism. (W. H. Sheran). 
 Any fairly intelligent person who delves attentively 
 in this Handbook of Literary Criticism, need never 
 again be at a loss to express himself on literary mat- 
 ters, because it furnishes not merely the requisite 
 knowledge of literature as such and of literature as 
 an art, but also furnishes the very language, the 
 very phrases, the very words themselves, which en- 
 able one to talk on literature and literary subjects 
 with that familiarity and that facility which marks 
 one as a cultivated person. $1.25. 
 
 Just as our smaller book, Heydrick's How to Study Literature 
 (75 cents postpaid) enables one to master any particular book so 
 as to be able to discuss it intelligently (actually furnishing lists 
 of the right words to describe the author's style and other char- 
 acteristics and all the features of the book) so Sheran's Literary 
 Criticism teaches the student how to approach literature In gen- 
 eral so as to talk intelligently about literature In general. 
 
 Books 1 Have Read. An outline notebook. 25 cts. 
 A new device that makes possible the keeping of a 
 systematic, uniform, concise and complete record of 
 the books one reads. 
 
 Merchant of Venice Completely Outlined. 30c. 
 Popular Patriotic Poems Explained. 65 cents.
 
 Writing the Short-Story. By the Editor of Lippin- 
 cotfs Magazine. An inspiring and practically sug- 
 gestive study of the form, structure, and marketing 
 of the short-story, by a well-known critic and writer. 
 There is a live wire in every chapter. $1.25. 
 
 PARTIAL CONTENTS 
 
 History of the Short- Characters and Charac- 
 
 Story terization 
 
 What Is a Short-Story ? The Title 
 
 Kinds of Short-Story Fact in Fiction 
 
 Choosing a Theme Ending the Story 
 
 Gathering Materials Style 
 
 The Opening Preparation for Authorship 
 
 The Plot Preparing and Selling the 
 Setting Manuscript 
 
 Body of the Story Full Lists of Stories and 
 Dialogue Outline of Plots 
 
 New Textbook on Letter Writing. Practical. 75c. 
 How to Punctuate Correctly. (Paper). 25 cents. 
 
 The Man Who Pleases and Woman Who Charms. 
 
 The points of conduct and the marks of breeding that 
 spell s u c c e s s social and business success. 75cts. 
 
 The Religion of Beauty. (Bell). $1.25. 
 
 The Secret of a Good Memory. Practicable. $1.00. 
 
 American Standard System of Pitman Phono- 
 graphy {Scott- Browne). Revised by Howard E. 
 Randall. This system is used in many of the large 
 commercial schools throughout the United States. 
 Over 100,000 of the Manual have been sold. 
 
 Manual of Pitman Phonography $1.00 
 
 Reading Exercises 25 
 
 First Phonographic Reader 50 
 
 Second Phonographic Reader 60 
 
 Dictation Book 25 
 
 Shorthand Abbreviations or Dictionary 60 
 
 Shorthand Names and Phrases 50 
 
 Reporter's Guide 1.50 
 
 Pencil Notes 26 
 
 Book of Business Letters 60 
 
 Typewriter Instructor 60 
 
 Commercial Arithmetic (Crittenden). $1.00. Key 
 to same, 50 cents. 
 
 How to Become Quick at Figures. Rev. Ed. $1.00. 
 3000 Practice Words. (Westlake). 30 cents.
 
 Speaking! Debating! 
 
 DECLAMATIONS, RECITATIONS, READING: 
 
 DIALOGUES, DEBATES, PRIZE SPEAKING, ORATIONS, 
 
 FOR ALL OCCASIONS 
 
 Cloth unless otherwise indicated 
 
 Acme Declamation Book (some Dialogues) .. (paper 30c.) $0.50 
 Approved Selections (1 vol. for each Grade, 1 to 8)*. .each .25 
 
 Best American Orations of To-Day (Blackstone) 1.25 
 
 College Girls' Three Minute Readings (Davis) 1.00 
 
 College Men's Three Minute Declamations (Davis) 1.00 
 
 Commencement Parts. (Orations, Essays; Class Day and 
 
 "After Dinner" Efforts). Efforts for alloccasions (Davis) 1.50 
 
 Famous Poems Explained (Barbe) 1.00 
 
 Great Poems Interpreted (Barbe) 1.25 
 
 Patriotic Poems Explained (Murphy) 65 
 
 The Patriotic Speaker (Brownlee) 1.25 
 
 Handy Pieces to Speak (on separate cards). Pry., Intermed., 
 
 Advanced, (contains some Dialogues) .50 
 
 Humorous Speaker, The 1.25 
 
 Model Speaker, The (Lawrence)* 1.10 
 
 Modern American Speaker, The (Shurter) 1.25 
 
 Most Popular Selections (Pearson's "The Speaker Series.") 
 
 Send tor descriptive list. 32 nos. (pap. ea.40c.) cloth, ea. .60 
 New Dialogues and Plays for Children, Ages 5 to 10, (pap.) .50 
 New Dialogues and Plays for Children, Ages 10 to 15, (pap.) .50 
 
 New Dialogues and Plays for Ages 15 to 25, (paper) 50 
 
 _(The above three books in one volume) cloth 1.50 
 
 Pieces for Every Occasion (Le Row) 1.25 
 
 Pieces That Have Taken Prizes in Speaking Contests (Craig) 1.25 
 New Pieces That Will Take Prizes " " (Blackstone) 1.25 
 Selected Readings from the Most Popular Novels (Lewis) . 1.25 
 Southern Speaker, The (Ross) 1.00 
 
 Entertainments for Every Occasion 1.25 
 
 Both Sides of 100 Public Questions Briefly Debated 1.25 
 
 Pros and Cons: Complete Debates (Craig) 1.50 
 
 Intercollegiate Debates, Vols. I, II, III, IV, V, ...each 1.50 
 
 250 New Questions for Debates (paper) 15 
 
 How to Organize and Conduct a Meeling (Henry) 75 
 
 Handbook of Parl'y Usage: Instantaneous Arbitrator (Howe) .50 
 New Parliamentary Manual (Palmer) 75 
 
 How to Appreciate the Drama (Marble) 1.25 
 
 Well Planned Course in Reading, A (Le Row)* 1.00 
 
 Ten Weeks' Course in Elocution, A (Coombs) 1 
 
 Essential Steps in Reading and Speaking (Fox) 
 
 Manual of Elocution and Reading (Brooks)* 
 
 New Science and Art of Elocutioa (Fenno)* 
 
 Extemporaneous Speaking (Pearson and Hicks) 
 
 The Power of Speech (Lawrence)* 
 
 How to Use the Voice in Reading and Speaking (Of*)* 
 
 .25 
 .50 
 .10 
 .25 
 .25 
 .25 
 .25 
 
 How to Gesture. Illustrated. (Ott)* 1.00 
 
 How to Attract and Hold an Audience (Esenwein)* . . . . 1.00 
 Psychology of Public Speaking (Scott)* 1.25 
 
 Contents of any of the above books on request
 
 6J 
 
 ^ 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW.
 
 4533 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A 000 886 484 5