INTELLIGENCE AND MORALS 67 



contemporary, Green, is so disturbed by the re 

 moval from nature of its moral qualities, that he 

 tries to show that this makes no difference, since na 

 ture in any case is constituted and known through 

 a spiritual principle which is as permanent as na 

 ture is changing 1 . An Amiel genteelly laments the 

 decadence of the inner life, while his neighbor Nietz 

 sche brandishes in rude ecstasy the banner of brute 

 survival as a happy omen of the final victory of 

 nobility of mind. The reasonable conclusion from 

 such a scene is that there is taking place a trans 

 formation of attitude towards moral theory rather 

 than mere propagation of varieties among theories. 

 The classic theories all agreed in one regard. They 

 all alike assumed the existence of the end, the sum- 

 mum bonum, the final goal; and of the separate 

 moral force that moves to that goal. Moralists 

 have disputed as to whether the end is an aggre 

 gate of pleasurable state of consciousness, enjoy 

 ment of the divine essence, acknowledgment of the 

 law of duty, or conformity to environment. So they 

 have disputed as to the path by which the final 

 goal is to be reached: fear or benevolence? rever 

 ence for pure law or pity for others? self-love or 

 altruism? But these very controversies implied 

 that there was but the one end and the one 

 means. 



The transformation in attitude, to which I re 

 ferred, is the growing belief that the proper busi- 



