Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 6.djvu/376

 360 W. H. FAIBBROTHER : a delusive, though highly convenient, refuge for the weak, and, so believing, deliberately pursue ' vicious ' pleasure as his true ' end,' is a possibility which requires little demon- stration intellectually, and may be seen manifest occasionally in actual life. These cases exist, they are ethically and practically interesting, they are worthy of careful portrayal both in themselves and in the effects they may be expected to produce upon the well-being of the community ; but they admit of little dispute, they require little in the way of ex- planation, and they are comparatively infrequent. The greater proportion of the wrong-doing we see falls under neither of these categories. The average citizen, when brought to book for offences committed, often pleads ex- tenuating circumstances may sometimes urge that circum- stances "were too much for him" but he does not plead ignorance of that ' Morality formulated in Law,' TO ^6/u/ioi/ Sifcaiov, which as a citizen he knows he ought to obey ; still less does he glory in striving after an ' end' abhorrent to the popular conscience. He ' knew it was wrong but he did it ' is what he admits when honest with himself, and the truth of the admission is accepted without question by his fellow- citizens. To this general belief the whole institution of legal courts and sanctions is due, nor have they any other justification but the fact that by due punishment by 'making an example' they may help both the offender and his fellow-citizens to choose the right, and resist the temptation to wrong, in daily practice. Here then is a fact of social life, not only interesting but puzzling, and so widespread that it becomes of the utmost practical importance to get a clear explanation of its nature and cause. Such explanation is far from obvious it will demand lengthy and thorough investigation. But, to begin with, it is imperative to note that the so-called ' fact ' is not one but two. Wrong-doingeven in the limited meaning we are now attaching to the word falls into two distinct divisions : (1) acts of wrong, in the ordinary sense of the term ; (2) acts of Incontinence. In the former case the offender not only 'does wrong,' he is also a 'wrong-doer'; in the latter, he does indeed ' do wrong,' but he is not a ' wrong- doer'. 1 This distinction is fundamental, necessitating for each case a separate, possibly an independent, explanation. The first of these two cases, fortunately, is, in its essential nature, easy of comprehension and needs but a short ex- 1 Of. N. E. passim, e.g., vii., 8, 3, 01 aKpareis adiKoi fitv OVK fla-lv, adtKovcri 8e.