the knowledge of them by a chain of argument and induction, or by an immediate feeling and finer internal sense.'—Ib. These are two perfectly distinct questions. Mackintosh's Dissertation, sect. i. As to the foundation of moral distinctions, I wish to insist that that is independent of human personality; while as to the knowledge of moral distinctions, that is derived from Reason, not from feeling.

2. Of the duality of moral distinctions, these may be taken as examples :-persevering use of personal powers, courageous endurance of privation, truthfulness in utterance, kindness of disposition, and efforts to mitigate the sufferings of others, are right actions; while vanity on account of possessions, envy of others in prosperity, secret satisfaction at their trials, dishonest dealings, and wilful infliction of injury, are wrong actions.

3. The actions possessed of moral quality are the actions of intelligent agents. If the term 'action' be employed in a wider sense, such application goes beyond the moral sphere, as when we speak of the 'action' of water on the rock; organic action, as the action of the heart; and the action of an animal in walking or eating. When deliberate reflection on the nature of the act is impossible, moral quality does not belong to the action. The terms 'right' and 'wrong' are misapplied, when used in relation to any actions other than personal actions.

4. All moral actions, being the actions of persons, presuppose intelligent observation, and are carried out by personal determination for a definite end. Every moral action, therefore, is capable of being regarded in three relations, according to its origin, progress, and result. With all these, intelligent self-determination is concerned. A moral action, therefore, includes motive, act, and end. As these may be distinguished from each other, they may differ in moral quality. The motive may be right, though the act is wrong. The end is the voluntary purpose of the agent, which will commonly harmonise in character with the motive.

5. All personal actions are not known as moral actions. The varieties of activity possible to man are according to the powers which belong to his nature. That nature may be contemplated as physical, intellectual, and moral. Action which is merely physical, or purely intellectual, does not necessarily come within the moral sphere. For example, walking, leaping, and lifting; efforts of attention, reasoning, and memory, are not in themselves moral actions.

6. Actions not in themselves recognised as moral actions may acquire moral character by being involved with the action of our moral nature. The complex nature, physical, intellectual, and moral, may in all its parts be concerned with a definite line of action, in which case the whole extent of activity wears a moral character. Every power belonging to us as moral beings is thus capable of being turned to a moral or an immoral use. Physical exercise is a merely physical good; but physical strength can be employed for the attainment of moral good or the doing of moral evil. Intellectual exercise is an intellectual good, but it also can be employed in moral relations, for good or evil.

7. Actions which are not in themselves Moral actions, cannot with philosophical warrant be denominated actions 'morally indifferent.' The reason for this statement is contained in the previous paragraph, from which it appears that the distribution of our actions into 'good, bad, and indifferent,' is inadmissible.

The designation 'indifferent' comes to us from the Stoic Philosophy, adiάpopa, things neither good nor bad.—See Zeller's Stoics, etc., p. 218. The distinction was accepted by Cicero, who translated adtápopov by indifferens: 'Quod illi adtápopov dicunt, id mihi ita occurrit, ut indifferens dicerem.' -De Finibus, iii. 16. Cicero also described things indifferent by the designation res mediae, things lying in the middle, between right and wrong. This phrase is as unsuitable as the other, for things morally right are not separated from

All beyond that sphere,
The contrast is interest-

things morally wrong by an intermediate territory. Moral distinctions belong to a single sphere, which is the inner and more sacred sphere of human life. moral characteristics cease to apply. ing between this classification of things (possessions rather than actions), without moral quality as res mediae, and Aristotle's mean, peoórns, as determining the nature of virtue. The Stoics aimed at a classification of different kinds of good, and placed such external good as health of body, honours, and wealth, as res mediae. Aristotle, looking at activity, makes the mean to be the test of virtuous action in all cases.

In the Scotch Philosophy, Reid accepted the classification of actions into 'good, bad, and indifferent.'-Active Powers, Essay v. c. iv. (Hamilton's Ed. p. 646.)

8. Whether moral distinctions are recognised by men generally, may be ascertained by reference to the testimony. coming (1) from individual conduct, and (2) from social life. What has been reached introspectively may thus be tested by external observation. First, Testimony from personal conduct. Every man is seen to experience self-approbation and self-condemnation on account of his actions. Shame because of wrong-doing may be taken as an illustration, with the admission that there is a distinction between the shame felt on account of awkwardness, and that on account of wickedness. Second, Testimony from social life. Men are agreed in approving certain actions as right, and all nations inflict punishment on evil-doing.

The sufficiency of the evidence from these sources is not affected by the question whether that evidence is applicable to all forms of moral distinctions. For the present purpose, it is of no moment whether the actions punished by society do or do not embrace the whole range of actions morally wrong. The fact of the punishment of some actions is sufficient. Even on Professor Bain's theory, which makes punishment and moral distinction co-extensive (Emotions and Will, p. 257). there arises no difference at the present point.

9. While all men agree in accounting certain actions right and others wrong, they may not agree as to the actions so regarded. The explanation of such disagreement is connected with the later enquiry regarding the ground or criterion of moral distinctions, but such disagreement does not affect the evidence for the fact, that men do recognise moral differences among actions.

10. PROBLEMS.—(1.) Indicate the grounds on which THE GOOD is not to be taken as affording a commencement for Ethical Enquiry. (2.) Does the identification of pleasure with the good, in the Protagoras, rest on sufficient grounds? (3.) Animals may be trained to obedience; a dog will rush into the water to save a drowning child; animals undomesticated and untamed will die for the protection of their young: do such facts as these indicate a knowledge of moral distinctions? Darwin's Descent of Man, 1. c. iii. 'The Moral Sense.' On the opposite side, Wallace's Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection.

CHAPTER II.

MORAL JUDGMENTS.

(INTUITIONAL THEORY.)

1. A Philosophy of personal experience, to be adequate, must account for the origin and nature of each fact in experience.

2. As the knowledge here to be explained is my knowledge, it involves the relation between me and mine, and its explanation must in part at least be in myself. Personality contains the primary explanation of personal experience.

3. As the knowledge here to be explained is the knowledge of moral quality in the actions of myself and others, it involves a further relation between me and others, and its explanation may be in part beyond myself, in so far as it may be concerned with what is neither me nor mine. The explanation of some personal experience may in part be found in what is beyond my personality. In so far as my experience implies the recognition of moral distinctions by others, it may find part of its explanation in other personalities.

4. As the fact now to be explained is KNOWLEDGE, not Feeling, it can be accounted for only by the existence of a cognitive power belonging to our personality. Whether this power be an original power of mind, or the result of development from simpler elements, is a question belonging to a later stage of enquiry. However attained, this knowing power belongs to our personality, and its exercise from time to time depends upon our personality.