INTRODUCTORY 



therefore it would mutilate a study of sociological 

 theories, not to include in our review those ethical 

 systems which are plainly of the same house and lineage. 



Every argument proceeds upon certain assumptions ; 

 and it may be as well to confess at the outset what is to 

 be assumed in the following essay, viz. the trustworthi- 

 ness of the moral consciousness, or the reality of the 

 distinction between right and wrong. This test will not 

 be formally set aside, except by a few wild thinkers ; 

 but it may be objected that assumptions ought to be 

 vindicated, ought to be justified. Very true ; our test 

 needs justification by philosophy, and we believe that 

 philosophy can do the necessary work, but not here. 

 We cannot incorporate en passant a body of metaphysical 

 prolegomena to ethics. We must be allowed to let our 

 point of view stand as an assumption. 



Looking at matters thus, although we seek to learn 

 from the theories reviewed, and especially from the 

 interesting and valuable details which they have col- 

 lected, yet our analysis will necessarily to a large extent 

 be hostile. 



First, we ask whether the various theories agree with 

 each other? And on this Mr. Benjamin Kidd, himself 

 a sociologist, tells us that the sociologists are hopelessly 

 divided in their attempts to furnish practical guidance. 

 The science was to have been founded by Comte fifty 

 years ago and more ; Mr. Kidd seems to think it still 

 needs founding by a new recurrence to biology. It is 

 plain, therefore, that the appeal to fact has not yet done 

 for the study of society what it promised to do. Neither 

 theologians nor metaphysicians could have been more 

 hopelessly at issue among themselves than the votaries 

 of fact have been and still are. Secondly, we ask 



