SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. 



lOI 



SCIENTIFIC LITEEATUEE. 



ETHICS AS A SCIENCE. 

 Thanks to such writers as Spencer, 

 Stephen and Sutherland, we have been 

 long familiar with ethics treated 

 from a scientific standpoint. Yet the 

 science of ethics, as pursued by these 

 thinkers, betrayed one evident defect — 

 it proceeded by analogy from the physi- 

 cal sciences. In the new work, entitled 

 'Ethics, Descriptive and Explanatory' 

 (Macmillan), by Professor Mezes, of the 

 University of Texas, an effort is made 

 to remove this reproach. His aim "is 

 to give as adequate critical and method- 

 ical an account as possible of what 

 morality and immorality are . . . 

 to construct a positive or purely scien- 

 tific theory of Ethics, and to give a 

 naturalistic account of all the aspects 

 of morality and immorality." Mr. 

 Mezes does not forget that this is a vast 

 undertaking, one not to be compassed 

 within the limits of a text-book such 

 as this professes to be. But, remem- 

 bering these restrictions. Me may say 

 that he has produced an excellent work; 

 indeed, so excellent, that it were well 

 worth his while to consider whether it 

 might not be wise for him to view it 

 as the prospectus of a far more ambi- 

 tious undertaking, in which some, if not 

 all, the major problems could be 

 MTOught out with fullness. The plan 

 pursued by Mr. Mezes is as follows: 

 In the Introduction, he defines ethics, 

 shows its scope and method, and dis- 

 tinguishes between moral and non-moral 

 phenomena. The body of the book con- 

 sists of two parts, the first dealing with 

 subjective morality and the individual 

 conscience; the second discussing objec- 

 tive morality, and embracing, among 

 other inquiiies, an admirable analysis of 

 justice. A conclusion treats the nature 

 and value of morality. As the work is 

 undoubtedly of considerable importance, 



several interesting features deserve men- 

 tion. Mr. Mezes is thoroughly object- 

 ive in his method, and so approaches, 

 within his chosen sphere, the stand- 

 point which a biologist might occupy 

 in his. Significant in this connection 

 is his shrewd suggestion that ethics is 

 not to be treated as a teleological 

 science till you come to the end of it. 

 He is to be commended greatly, fur- 

 ther, for the even-handed way in which 

 he grapples with the ticklish questions 

 of conscience and the like. He shows 

 clearly that Moralitat, while by no 

 means of the importance assigned it by 

 the ti-aditional English and theologi- 

 cal moralists, cannot be overlooked. In 

 particular, he contrives to put the re- 

 sults of psychological research to good 

 use in his analysis. This is one of sev- 

 eral pleasing and hopeful features. 

 Similarly, in this connection, he rids 

 himself of the time-honored static con- 

 ception of conscience, and, by adopting 

 a dynamic theory, actually vindicates 

 a concrete place in moral life for this 

 hoary abstraction. So, too, when he 

 passes to objective morality (Sittlich- 

 keit), and makes contact with the car- 

 dinal virtues. Under his sober hand, 

 these cease to be vague entities float- 

 ing in mid-air, and come to take their 

 places as vital results of objective mo- 

 rality—results shot out, as it were, by 

 the interaction of man with man. The 

 chapter on justice deserves to rank with 

 the best discussions of the subject. 

 Mr. Mezes, in short, has managed to 

 free himself from many of the stulti- 

 fications that have beset scientific mor- 

 alists in the past. Whether he has 

 emancipated himself from all need not 

 be discussed now. It is suflScient to 

 note that he has produced a fresh, sug- 

 gestive and most careful work; that he 

 has adopted and held fast to a scientific 



