Self-elimination Necessary to a Comprehensive Formula. 309 
How to evolve from this multiplicity of apparently mutually 
incompatible principles a consistent system of moral judg¬ 
ments, is a problem which it lies beyond the limits of this paper 
to consider. One practical corollary from all that has been said 
must however be sufficiently obvious by this time. Whatever, 
namely, the resultant formula for morality may be, its validity 
must not be supposed to be dependent upon whether it happens 
to coincide with our “deepest affections and admirations,”—to 
quote Martineau once more—or whether it does not. For these 
vary from person to person, their exact nature being deter¬ 
mined mainly by accidents of temperament. Our own ideals 
must indeed contribute their share towards the final form of the 
ethical criterion, for we too are representative members of the 
human race, but they must not be allowed to determine it by 
themselves. Such relative self-elimination, such comparative 
repression of the imperious demands of one’s own nature is 
exceedingly difficult. To all but those who are thoroughly domin¬ 
ated by the scientific spirit, it may be even impossible. But 
until it is accomplished, works on ethics can be little better 
than more or less interesting autobiographies. As Karl Pear¬ 
son has reminded us in his Grammar of Science: “The classi¬ 
fication of facts and the formation of absolute judgments upon 
the basis of the classification—judgments independent of the 
idiosyncracies of the individual mind—is peculiarly the scope 
and method of modern science. The scientific man has above 
all things to aim at self-elimination in his judgments, to pro¬ 
vide an argument which is as true for each individual as for 
himself. ” Certain it is that until this is done, a science of ethics 
is impossible. 
Madison , Wis. 
