of science than the other sciences. Still, there are final problems which the biologist as such does not undertake to solve. The psychologist, again, analyzes and explains states of consciousness; he splits up the mind into its elements and refers them to their physical and psychical antecedents. But the questions, What is the ultimate nature and origin of consciousness or soul? How is such a thing as mind possible at all? Whence comes it and whither does it go? What is its relation to matter and motion? are left unanswered.1

Every science, then, confines itself to a particular group of phenomena and seeks to explain these in terms of each other.2 But certain ultimate questions suggest themselves, which, though hard to answer, cannot be brushed aside. These questions are handed over to philosophy or metaphysics for settlement. Philosophy simply means, as James puts it,

66

an unusually obstinate attempt to think clearly and. consistently." To philosophize means to go to the very bottom of things, to think a problem out to the bitter end, to account for everything, to understand everything. In strictness, every science should be philosophical, it should not stop until all questions have been answered. And as a matter of fact, there are philosophical scientists in every

1 It cannot be denied, of course, that every science makes certain metaphysical assumptions, that it practically starts out with the metaphysics of common sense.

2 In so far as it does this, we might call it empirical, as distinguished from rational or metaphysical.

sphere of science, men who like Wilhelm von Humboldt, Darwin, Huxley, and Helmholtz, cross the narrow confines of the particular fields in which they happen to be working, and look at the universe as a whole.

Now the remarks which apply to the other sciences likewise apply to ethics. Ethics investigates a particular branch of facts and has to explain them. An ideal science of ethics will not stop until it thoroughly understands the phenomena with which it deals, and this, as we have seen, is not possible without universal knowledge. To realize its ideal, ethics must become philosophical, must be philosophy. In this respect, however, we repeat, it in no wise differs from the other sciences.

We shall not, however, in this book, attempt to do more than the average science does with its subjectmatter. We shall be satisfied if we succeed in finding the general principles underlying morality. We must leave it to the philosophers to solve the ultimate problems of ethics and to insert the facts of morality into the universal system of things.1

11. The Methods of Ethics. Let us next consider the methods of ethics. The method to be pursued by our science does not, generally speaking, differ from that followed by other sciences. We must examine moral phenomena with the same

1 For the relation of philosophy to the sciences. see Paulsen, Introduction to Philosophy, pp. 15 ff.; Külpe, Introduction to Philosophy; Münsterberg, Der Ursprung der Sittlichkeit, 1 ff.

We

care practised in other fields of research. must observe and collect moral facts wherever we can. We must investigate the modes of conduct of different races, nations, classes, individuals, and periods of time. We must watch the behavior of the civilized and uncivilized, adults and children, men and women; we must go as far back to the beginnings of history as we can; we must study the mythology, theology, philosophy, literature, and art of the different peoples, in order to discover what they considered right and wrong; we must look at their language, "the fossilized spiritual life of mankind," at their systems of law, at their political, social, and economic conditions, which are to a large extent an embodiment of their morality. What a wealth of moral facts we find in the works of Homer, Hesiod, and the Greek tragedians, in Shakespeare, Byron, and Goethe! What an insight we gain into the moral feelings of the Middle Ages from the contemplation of their great works of art; and how much the social conditions of our own times tell us of the moral ideals of the age!

Facts, then, must be gathered in our science, both external and internal facts. We must look outward and inward. But we must also study and seek to interpret these facts; we must reflect and speculate upon them. No science can live without speculation. You may gather facts by the thousands and be no better off than before; they are merely the raw material upon which you must work,

which you must form into a system. We must pass from facts to principles. The mere observance of facts will lead to nothing. Only a highly synthetic, only an imaginative mind, one that can peer through the outward shell into the very heart of nature, is capable of advancing science.

12. Theoretical Ethics and Practical Ethics. - We may distinguish between theoretical ethics and practical ethics. A science or theory, as has been said, teaches us to know, and an art to do.1 In studying a subject theoretically or scientifically in this sense, we seek to discover the principles or laws governing our phenomena. Anatomy and physiology are theories in so far as they examine the general structure and functions of organisms. After we have found the principles or laws, we apply them, we put them into practice, we lay down certain rules which must be obeyed in order that we may reach certain ends. The science or theory of physiology teaches us how the body functions, what causes it to function in this way, what are the conditions essential to its functioning so. The art or practice of hygiene frames rules based upon these principles, the observance of which is essential to health. The science of psychology tells us what are the conditions or causes of certain mental phenomena; pedagogy applies the truths discovered by the psychologist in practice. Every art bases itself upon a theory; and the more developed the art the more developed, as

1 See Sully, Teacher's Handbook of Psychology, chap. i.

a rule, the theory upon which it rests. And the final end or purpose of every science or theory is to be of some practical use.1

Now there is also a science or theory of ethics and an art of ethics. The science discovers the principles, the art applies them. The science teaches us what is done, the art what ought to be done. Practical ethics is the application of theoretical ethics.2

13. The Value of Ethics. In conclusion, let us consider the value of ethics for the student. Why should we study ethics? Well, why study anything? Morality is a fact, and as such deserves to be studied. Man is a reflective being, and, therefore, bound to take cognizance of everything in the universe. His own conduct is surely important and interesting enough to merit the attention which is given to the study of physical occurrences.

1 See Drobisch, Logik, p. 165.

Man

2 For views similar to the above, see the references to Münsterberg, Simmel, Paulsen, and Stephen, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. See also Ziegler, Sittliches Sein und sittliches Werden. Many writers, following Wundt (Ethik, Part I, Introduction), compare ethics to logic, and call it a normative science (Normwissenschaft). According to them, logic gives us the laws of correct thinking, the norms or rules which must be observed in order to reach truth. It also measures our thinking by these rules or norms, and judges its value accordingly. Ethics tells us how we ought to act in order to act ethically, or morally; it lays down norms, or rules of conduct, which the agent must obey in order to insure the morality of his conduct. See Hyslop, Muirhead, Mackenzie. In this sense, however, it seems to me, every science that can be applied in practice is normative. - Cf. Spencer, Social Statics, p. 458.