ol, the
inductive, morality is claimed to be founded upon selfishness, the
moving principle of human actions being the desire to avoid pain and
attain pleasure. Each school makes a strong argument, which goes far to
indicate that each is based upon a truth, and therefore that neither has
the whole truth.

The fault would appear to lie in the attempt to make morality a unit. In
our view this unity does not exist. While both schools may be partly
right, neither would seem to be wholly right, and they appear to be
pulling at the two ends of a single chain. Ethics, in short, may be
regarded as composed of unlike halves, which unite centrally to form a
whole. It may aid to reconcile the conflicting systems of theorists if
it be held that the inductive half of ethics is the product of the
reasoning powers and outer experience, the intuitive half the product of
feeling and inner development; while both meet and harmonize in life as
reason and feeling harmonize in the mind.

It is interesting to find that it is the intuitive, not the inductive,
element of the moral attributes that we find principally developed in
the lower animals. This is the outgrowth of instinct, not of thought;
the development of that principle of attraction which manifests itself
in all nature, and which, when associated with consciousness, becomes
what we know as love, affection, or sympathy. It is a powerful and
pervading force in all matter, intelligent and unintelligent, and in
conscious beings falls naturally among the emotions. Like all the
passions, it is instinctive in origin, though it may come under the
control of the intellect as the mind develops. In the lower animal world
it is manifested as a vigorous attraction, the sexual. In the higher
animals this attraction expands and grows complex. The attraction
between the sexes becomes love, and in its full unfoldment may join two
individuals together for life and influence most of their actions. To
the attraction between the sexes should be added that between parents
and children, the parental and filial, and that between associates, the
tribal or social, the latter, though weaker, of the same character.

With these bonds reason has nothing to do. It does not form them and
would seek in vain to sever them. They belong to a part of the mental
constitution which lies outside the kingdom of thought, and they,
therefore, often act counter to the selfish consideration of personal
safety. The love bon