pathy widens, old forms of conduct are repudiated and new ones adopted.

(c) Conditions, inner and outer, change and make acts harmful or harmless, which were once not so. The race, however, is conservative, and clings to the old forms from force of habit and because the moral sentiments which cluster around them cannot be eradicated all at once. Just as there are laws on our statute books which once served a useful purpose, but are now ineffective and even harmful, so there are laws inscribed on the hearts of men which have lost their reason for existence. The orthodox Jew is taught to feel a certain moral reverence for customs which were rational for the time and place where they originated, but whose usefulness is gone. 7. Moral Reform. But perhaps the end realized by the several moral codes of peoples is not a truly moral one, you say; perhaps their morality is not the true morality. Very true, we answer, but it is not our purpose to give to the world a brand new moral code, but to interpret the codes already existing. It is the business of a scientific ethics to study the morality that is, to investigate the rules of conduct which men feel as moral, and discover the principle which gave rise to them. If we find that there is such a principle and that men tacitly assent to it, we shall understand the genesis of morals. We shall be able to see where men have bungled in their blind attempts to apply the principle, and we shall be able to distinguish more intelligently between the right

and the wrong. After we have found the ideal which is vaguely guiding the destinies of mankind, we of the present time can ask ourselves whether we are really realizing it in our conduct. We cannot, however, lay down the law to the world, nor can we evaluate the existing codes of morality, without having a principle or criterion by which to test it. If we make conscience the criterion, that is, our own individual conscience, we are bound to speak dogmatically, and must concede the same right to other consciences. We can never obtain the consensus hominum for our rules unless we can justify them by means of a principle which everybody tacitly accepts.

But,

8. The Ultimate Sanction of the Moral Law. we are asked by another objector, what validity has this principle of yours? You say that an act is good or bad because it produces effects desired or not desired by men. Why do men desire these effects? Why do they prefer certain effects to others? And why do they feel bound to bring about certain ones and to refrain from causing others? You say that morality is a means to an end, that the moral laws are grounded on their utility. Suppose we grant it, suppose we justify the particular rules by the fact that they serve a purpose. But how are we to justify this end or purpose itself?

We cannot answer. We regard certain acts as good or bad because they tend to produce certain

effects or to realize a certain end or ideal.

These

effects, this end, this ideal, are desired by men absolutely. We can give no reason for the fact that man prefers life to death or happiness to unhappiness. We can understand why having certain impulses he should come to develop modes of conduct which tend to realize them. But why he should desire what he desires is a mystery which we cannot solve. Here we have reached the bed-rock of our science, here we have a true categorical imperative which commands absolutely and unconditionally.1

9. Motives and Effects. -The point is also raised that we call a man good in spite of the evil effects which his acts naturally tend to produce, when his motives are good. If the effects constituted the measure of worth, it is held, then the agent would be called bad regardless of his motives.

1 Hume, Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, Appendix I, v: "It appears evident that the ultimate ends of human actions can never, in any case, be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties. Ask a man why he uses exercise; he will answer, because he desires to keep his health; if you then inquire why he desires health, he will readily reply, because sickness is painful. If you push your inquiries farther, and desire a reason why he hates pain, it is impossible he can ever give any. This is an ultimate end, and is never referred to any other object. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection." See Paulsen, Ethics, especially p. 249; Spencer, Data of Ethics, chap. iii, § 9; Sigwart, Vorfragen der Ethik, pp. 11 f.; Logic, II, pp. 529 ff. See also § 9 (c), § 12, and beginning of chap. vi.

"We judge always the inner spring of action, as distinguished from its outward operation," says Martineau; or, as Bradley puts it,1 "Acts in so far as they spring from the good will are good." And Kant holds, "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a Good Will." "A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of a proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition; that is, it is good in itself." 2

Let us analyze this view.

(a) An act is good because it is prompted by a good will. But, we ask, what is a good will? Is there any such thing as an absolute good will? If not, what is the criterion of its goodness? A good will is a will that is good for something, a will that tends to realize a certain end or purpose, is it not? To say that a good will is a will that wills the good, is to argue in a circle. What is the good, what is the criterion of goodness? It seems that we need a standard for judging springs of action as much as we need one for judging acts.

(b) No, you say, a good will is one which acts from a sense of duty or respect for the law, regardless of effects, and we call him good whose will is good in this sense. But, we ask, do we really call a man good whose sense of duty prompts him to 2 Abbott's translation, p. 9.

1 Ethical Studies.

8 Kant.

.

commit crime? Almost every fanatic who has assassinated the ruler of a nation, from Harmodios and Aristogeiton down to the miserable wretch who took the life of the defenceless Queen Elizabeth of Austria, did so from a sense of duty. We cannot call the deeds of these pretended patriots good, even though we may believe that their motives were good, good in the sense that they intended to benefit mankind. The fact is, we judge not only the disposition or motive, but both motive and act, the person and the thing, the subject and the object. When a man's motives are good or pure, we call him subjectively or formally moral; when his act is good, objectively or materially moral.1 To quote Paulsen's example, Saint Crispin stole leather from the rich to make shoes for the poor. His desire was to alleviate suffering, his motives were in a certain sense good. But can we approve of his conduct, or of the conduct of the political assassins who believe that the devil should be fought with his own devilish weapons? Is it right to steal from the rich to benefit the poor; is it right to commit murder even without malice aforethought? Why not? Because theft and murder tend to produce effects subversive of life, because it lies in the very

1 "An act is materially good when, in fact, it tends to the interest of the system, so far as we can judge of its tendency, or to the good of some part consistent with the system, whatever were the affections of the agent." "An action is formally good when it flowed from good affection in a just proportion.” Hutcheson. See also Wundt, Paulsen, Jhering, and others.