is doing the work of the psychologist. And when he studies the moral nature of the infant and the primitive man, as he sometimes does, with a view to tracing the development of the conscience, he is still within the field of psychology. He may likewise consider animal states of consciousness, and search for the beginnings of conscience there, as Darwin did, in which case he is pursuing a psychological investigation.

Indeed, we may say that in so far as ethics deals. with moral states of consciousness, it is simply a special branch of psychology. But our science does not only look at the subjective side of conduct, it investigates the objective side also, and the relation which this bears to the subjective. What, it asks, is the nature of the acts which are judged moral; do they possess some mark or characteristic that makes them moral or leads men to call them so? Why do men judge as they do; what is the ground of moral distinctions? Why is wrong wrong, and right right? Explain the virtues and duties, e.g., benevolence, charity, justice, veracity, etc., and their opposites. Is there a standard or criterion or ideal by which conduct is judged, and what is it? Can we justify this standard or ideal, or is it something that cannot or need not be justified? Given a certain ideal or

1 See, for example, Ladd's treatment of the ethical sentiments in his Psychology, Descriptive and Explanatory, and Sully's account of the ethical or moral sentiments in the second volume of his Human Mind, or, in fact, any modern work on psychology.

standard, what conduct is moral, what immoral? Does humanity remain true to the ideal? What is the highest good for man, the end of life? Can we specify it scientifically, or is it impossible to do so?

Such are some of the questions which our science asks and seeks to answer. Should it be said that these also are problems for psychology to solve, we should raise no serious objection. The important thing is that the phenomena in question be examined and explained; whether by psychology or a special science does not matter. Ethical facts are, to a great extent, mental processes, and as such objects of psychological study. But the same may truthfully be said of the data of æsthetics. A science must thoroughly explain its facts, and, strictly speaking, psychology would have to explain ethical and æsthetical facts. But sciences divide their labor, and it is in keeping with the practices of modern scientific research that psychology should hand over to a special discipline the consideration of a particular set of its facts.

Besides, there are certain questions, as we have just seen, which are not usually considered by the psychologist. The psychologist studies states of consciousness as such; he regards his work as completed › when he has analyzed psychical phenomena and has referred them to their necessary psychical, or, if he be physiologically inclined, psychophysical antecedents. He does not, as a rule, inquire into the principles underlying conduct; he does not concern

himself with the question, What is the end of life, or what is the standard or criterion by which acts are measured? But he could do so and still remain within the confines of his proper field of study. Such an investigation would surely assist him in better understanding the workings of the human mind, just as a knowledge of physics and chemistry would enable the physiologist better to understand the subject-matter of his science.1

9. Ethics and Politics. The relation which ethics bears to the science of politics largely depends upon our conception of the nature and function of these two sciences. If we assume with Plato that ethics is the science of the highest good, and that the object of the State is to realize that end, then politics depends upon ethics, for we cannot tell what the State ought to do until we know what the highest good is. But if the State is the highest good, then conduct has value only in so far as it subserves the interests of the State, and ethics is simply a branch of, or another name for, politics, as Aristotle declares.

But let us say, ethics is the science of right and wrong; it discovers the principles of conduct, shows the ground of moral distinctions. Politics has to do

1 With the view advanced above Münsterberg, Der Ursprung der Sittlichkeit, and Simmel, Einleitung in die Moralwissenschaft, agree. See also Sully, The Human Mind, Appendix L. Mackenzie, A Manual of Ethics, especially Appendix B, opposes the conception.

with the nature, origin, and development of the State; it studies the different forms in which the State appears and has appeared, and strives to define the functions which it performs. It deals, let us say, with the principles of organized society. Now if ethics should discover that morality realizes a certain end or aim, and that the fact that it realizes such an end explains its existence, and if politics should find that the State realizes the same end, then there would evidently be a close connection between the two. Should we be fortunate enough to discover a principle or standard of morals, we should be able to say, in a general way, how a man ought to act in order to realize the ideal; we should be able to construct a moral code. And should we be able to specify the end or ideal aimed at by the State, we could compare the two ends or purposes. Should they be the same, then politics might be called a branch of ethics or vice versa. Ethics would lay down the general rules of conduct; it would tell us how to act as individuals. Politics would tell the State how to act; it would be a guide to the conduct of man in organized society.1

10. Ethics and Metaphysics. A science, as we have seen, analyzes, classifies, and explains a particular set of phenomena. Strictly speaking, no fact is explained until we know all about it, until we understand its relation to the entire universe. To

1 See Sidgwick, Methods of Ethics, Bk. I, chap. ii; Mackenzie, § 6; Muirhead, Elements of Ethics, pp. 34 ff.

C

know one thing well means to know everything, as we have already pointed out. An ideal science would therefore be able to account for every single fact within its domain and coördinate it with the rest of reality. As a matter of fact, however, this ideal is not realized. The different sciences do not even aim at so high a goal. They do not go very far in their search for the causes of things, nor do they attempt to understand the world as a whole. When a science has referred an event to an antecedent, and this perhaps to another antecedent or group of antecedents, it is apt to regard its work as done. The physicist as such, for example, studies the properties of matter, the laws of motion. He does not concern himself with the question regarding the ultimate nature and origin of these data, nor does he seek to correlate them with other forms of reality, say with the phenomena of mind. Nay, the temptation is strong to regard his facts as the ultimate and most important facts, and to subordinate all others. to them. The biologist studies the different forms of living matter which occur upon our earth; he investigates the structure and function of organisms and compares them with each other. It is true that the tendency toward unification is stronger in biology than in many other sciences, and that attempts have been made to derive the more complex forms. of life from simple beginnings; but in so far as this is the case, biology more nearly realizes the ideal

1 See § 7 of this chapter.