136 



here as closely as possible to the facts of life. Among such 

 facts, there stands out clearly and distinctly the fact of prefer- 

 ence, which individuals in all walks of life make regarding 

 this or that matter. This, according to the best analysis we 

 can make of the facts, has been the basic principle which, 

 through all its intricate forms, has been the strength of the 

 historical theories reviewed. The main dispute has really 

 been regarding what is, or 'should be' preferred. 



In the foregoing history, just reviewed, the moral judgment, 

 which, fundamentally, has rested on the above-mentioned 

 basic principle, has been variously ascribed to Reason, to 

 Conscience, to Moral Sense, and to Utility, and these, while 

 appearing to be entirely discordant, yet in the last analysis 

 present a common element. By whatever name these his- 

 torical theories have been known, each has in some way en- 

 deavoured to express that 'immediacy' or clearness if insight 

 which characterizes the majority of our moral j udgments ; such 

 a judgment, for example, as one makes when, under specific 

 circumstances, he prefers truth, or untruth, as the case may be. 

 Doubtless Intuitionism has often been over-zealous in its 

 method of postulating infallible laws, evidently unconnected 

 in their origin with the environment in which man lives; but, 

 on the other hand, the reason why this theory, in one form or 

 another, has for so long stood the test of time is that it rested 

 ultimately upon the claim that the principles or rules which 

 were evident in moral conduct, were not merely capricious 

 or accidental. On the other hand, the Utilitarian theory has 

 often gone to an extreme the direct opposite of that of the 

 Intuitionist, yet it has always rightly insisted on the necessity 

 of connecting moral principles in a vital sense with experience. 

 If the Intuitionist has been insistent on the dependence of 

 the empirical on the rational, the Utilitarian has emphasized 

 the vindication of the rational in the empirical. 



The claim of the Intuitionists to be in possession of certain 

 laws which were regarded as universally applicable without 

 being simple generalizations derived from particular circum- 

 stances, has always tended to create a gulf between the in- 

 tuitions of the individual and the empirical experience in 

 which such intuitions were to find expression. Consequently, 

 the individual in society has been conceived as being more or 

 less isolated, that is, as a particular unit among other parti- 

 cular units, the relation of each to the society in which he lives 

 being, to that extent, atomic. 



Such a theory, however, is, as theory, disregarded at the 

 present day, though practically it is too often operative. 

 But a study of the history of mankind supplies ample evidence 



