8 
always reverse this statement, and assnme that “ what is ” 
u ought to be ” ; for ought 33 would then signify 
bafed nothing. “ What is 33 may be wrong. A patho- 
(tatin efng who should mistake the facts of disease for 
in the widest normal conditions of nature would not err more 
widely than an optimist who deemed that “ what- 
ever is is right 33 in ethics. The more healthy and general 
the facts, the safer of course will be the inductions. The 
moralist, like other men, already finds himself in a great 
physical and social system of existence; and that which 
(e ought to be,” — his moral fabric of thought, feeling, 
emotion, and action — cannot negative this. The ontological 
and the deontological must not contradict each other. 
But the moment we say that anything in human life or 
conduct “ ought to be,” we assume a great deal. We at once 
The idea of recognize a real division of the world into Persons 
sl^efadistinc" an< ^ Things ; and in this take it for granted that 
tion ‘ between the universe of Persons has to act on the universe of 
thfng? 3 aa an a Things, and knows it. In this fact we find the rudi- 
fMt. ments of all moral philosophy. The action of persons, 
ex mero motn, is universally recognized in human life, and it is 
irrational therefore to deny it in philosophy, if facts are to 
guide us at all. 
9. Close to this fact of Personality, or conscious agency, 
lies another, which none can overlook. It is, that all persons 
call one another to account, for some at least of their 
actions. No one doubts that in some cases he is right in 
so taking account of the actions around him. As truly as 
The word the distinction between persons and things is in- 
volves account" v °l ye d i n the word “ ought,” however understood, 
ability as a so also the idea of Accountability is involved in the 
f act ' existence of “ persons 33 ; and some notion of right is 
implied in accountability. “ Accountability,” then, whatever 
be its verbal definition, is a fact to be examined. It is 
various both in degree and in kind, and out of these varia- 
tions arise those difficulties which are so frequently the 
practical hindrances of duty. We should not attempt to deny 
those difficulties : if we do not meet them distinctly, we leave 
them for the speculator and Pyrrhonist. 
10. The difficulties in the way of individual human account- 
ability have no doubt a great cumulative effect when presented 
Difficulties of us a t fully ; but, after all, are effectually met 
the idea of ac- by th q fact that that they actually do not eliminate 
counta i ty. accountability ” from any society of human 
beings, and never have eliminated it. The following may be 
taken perhaps as a general statement of the difficulties, and 
