moral law. As now the individual is necessary to society, whatever is required that he may live, even eating and drinking, comes under the view of morals. Even acts which spring from egoistic motives are objectively moral when they further the ends of society. Even our pleasures, recreations, and enjoyments have high objective moral significance, for they are the indispensable sources of our strength, and this benefits not merely us, but society.

One thought runs through all creation-selfpreservation. Man raises himself up to the moral plane when he gains the insight that his individual self-preservation is conditioned by his social selfpreservation. The means which nature employs in order to realize the law of self-preservation is pleasure. The necessary condition of pleasure is wellbeing. Well-being is possession of full powers. The striving after well-being is called eudæmonism. Social eudæmonism is the principle of morals. Wherein the weal and happiness of society consists, the history of mankind alone can evolve. Eudæmonism and utilitarianism are the same thing, from different points of view, the former from that of end, the latter from that of means.1

14. Wundt and Contemporaries. -Wundt 2 reaches a similar result. He holds that the proper way to investigate the moral end is to begin with the empirical moral judgments. Find the moral end in

1 Der Zweck im Recht, Vol. II, chap. ix, pp. 204 ff.

2 Ethics, translated in 3 vols.

particular cases, and by means of them proceed to the general ethical principle. Such an investigation will show that the individual, be it oneself or another, cannot be the ultimate end of morality. Happiness may be an important motive to the will and even an indispensable means for realizing the moral ends, but it cannot be regarded as the moral end itself. The universal spiritual productions of humanity, such as the State, art, science, and universal culture, are the objects of morality attainable by But since the very essence of morality is a ceaseless striving, the moral steps attained must not be regarded as a lasting end. The ultimate end of moral striving becomes an ideal never to be attained in reality. Thus the ethical ideal is the ultimate end; the progressive moral perfection of humanity the immediate end, of human morality.1

us.

5

To the same school belong H. Höffding,2 F. Paulsen, Th. Ziegler, A. Dorner, J. Seth, and others.

15. Kant. Even Kant, who regards himself as an opponent of all teleology, may, in my opinion, be classed among the energists. According to him, the highest good is not pleasure, neither my own nor that of mankind, but virtue, duty for duty's sake.

1 Ethics, Part III.

2 Ethik, 1887; Ethische Principienlehre, 1897.

8 System of Ethics, edited and translated by Frank Thilly.

4 Sittliches Sein und sittliches Werden.

5 Das menschliche Handeln.

6 A Study of Ethical Principles.

7 See chap. ii, § 7 (1).

The highest good in the world is a good will, and a good will is good not because of what it performs, but good in itself. That is, it acts from respect of the law, from a pure sense of duty. Now rational creatures alone have the faculty of acting according to the conception of laws, i.e., according to principles, i.e., have a will.2 The conception of an objective principle, in so far as it is obligatory for a will, is called a command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an imperative. There is an imperative which commands a certain conduct immediately. It concerns not the matter of the action, or its intended result, but its form and the principle of which it is itself the result. This is the categorical imperative. In order that this should be valid, it must be a necessary truth. This law follows necessarily from the very nature of the rational will.5 If there is anything of absolute worth, an end in itself, the reason must command it.

Now rational nature exists as an end in itself. Every man necessarily conceives his own existence. as an end in itself, and must therefore regard every other rational creature's existence in the same way. Hence the will must give itself this law, So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only. This principle is essentially identical with this other: Act upon a maxim which,

1 Abbott's translation, pp. 12, 16, 55, 8 p. 30.

2 p. 29.

4

* p. 33.

164 ff., 180, 241.

5

p. 44. 6 pp. 46 ff.

at the same time, involves its own universal validity for every rational being.1 For if I am only to act so that my acts can become universal, I cannot will to use any other rational creature as a means without willing that he use me as a means. The rational will therefore imposes universal laws, laws that hold for all, laws acceptable to all, which makes possible a kingdom of ends.2 Every rational being must so act as if he were by his maxims in every case a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.8

Translated into popular language, this ethical philosophy of Kant's seems to me to agree with the systems which we have just been considering. Conscience categorically commands certain forms of conduct, regardless of their effects. When we examine the forms of conduct enjoined by conscience, we find that a common principle is applicable to all; they are all fit for something, they all conduce to an end or highest good, - something of absolute worth, something absolutely desired by human nature, or as Kant states it, something that reason or the categorical imperative commands. Now what is this end? It seems to be the good of society. "So act that thou canst will the maxim of thy action to become universal law." That is, do not lie and steal, for thou canst not will that lying and stealing become universal. Why not? "For with such a law there would be no promises at all, since 1 Abbott's translation, p. 56. 2 p. 52.

8 p. 57.

it would be in vain to allege my intention in regard to my future actions to those who would not believe this allegation, or if they over-hastily did so would pay me back in my own coin. Hence my maxim, as soon as it should be made a universal law, would necessarily destroy itself." The implication here seems to be that society would go to pieces if the principles underlying certain acts should become universal.

every case as an

Kant also declares that every man necessarily conceives his own existence as an end in itself. This means that every man has egoistic impulses. And because he is egoistic he must have a due regard for others, he must treat them with respect, for otherwise he cannot expect them to treat him with respect. This is what he means when he says, So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in end withal, never as a means only. This is a philosophical statement of the command, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The kingdom of ends would be impossible unless every man cared for his own welfare and that of his fellows; therefore such principles of morality are implanted in his heart as to make a kingdom of ends possible.1 16. General Survey. In conclusion, let us note the progress which has been made in the history of the theory discussed in this chapter. The Greek

1 Compare with this Sidgwick's system, as given in chap. vi, § 13.