ANDIMAT “STH E TICS” AND» “EPHICS? ess 
believe.” I fail, however, to see the justification for the 
“therefore.” Surely the difference of behaviour in this 
example, and in other such examples, is sufficiently explained 
as the outcome of diverse situations, without having recourse 
to anything so psychologically complex as the conscious self- 
illusion of make-believe—interesting and important as this is 
in the psychology of children. To suppose that a monkey 
who nurses a bit of blanket has any ideas about its being a 
make-believe baby is o¢ to interpret the behaviour of animals 
in accordance with the canon we have adopted for our 
euldance. 
To return to the “ ethics” of animals. I have urged that 
ethical ideas, properly so called, have no place in their psy- 
chology. But just as the pleasure and satisfaction attending 
particular situations, as they severally arise, appear to contain 
the perceptual germs of what in later development becomes 
esthetic appreciation ; so, too, do they also contain the 
perceptual germs of what becomes, through reflection in man, 
ethical approbation. And the situations in which these ethical 
germs must be sought are those which entail behaviour for 
the good of the social community. Indeed, we may go so 
far as to say that the perceptual foundations of ethics are laid 
in the social instincts. The satisfaction or dissatisfaction 
arising from the performance or non-performance of instinctive 
behaviour, evolved for the biological end of the preservation 
of the social community, is the perceptual embryo from which 
conscience is developed. Professor Mackenzie has indicated 
the ambiguities in the use of the term “ conscience.” ‘“‘ It is,” 
he says,* “‘sometimes used to express the fundamental principles 
on which the moral judgment rests ; at other times it expresses 
the principles adopted by a particular individual; at other 
times it means ‘a particular kind of pleasure or pain felt 
in perceiving our own conformity or nonconformity to 
principle. + This last seems to me,” adds Mr. Mackenzie, 
* « Manual of Ethics,” pp. 285, 286. 
+ Starcke, International Journal of Ethics, vol. ii., no. 3 (April, 1892), 
p. o4s. 
