Page:Philosophical Review Volume 12.djvu/659

No. 6.] is more likely, other things being equal, to get knowledge than the man who is prompted by other cravings as well. But other things are not always equal, and the one thing needful in any scientific study is to keep one's methods bright and clean and to use them scrupulously.

But desire for utilization of results is not the chief danger in ethics. For the objects studied are objects which generally make an indefinable claim to our veneration. But in ethics loyalty to traditional duty must yield to loyalty to truth. No reverence for moral laws, no devotion to moral ideals, however hallowed either laws or ideals may be by immemorial custom or by religious association, must be allowed to interfere with an impartial handling of them. As well may we expect the awe-stricken worshipper of a volcano to make any valuable contribution to the scientific knowledge of volcanic disturbances as to expect the unquestioning moral devotee to advance the study of morality. The man who trembles before the voice of conscience is not, while the fear is on him, in a suitable frame of mind to pursue with profit the ethical science. He is an important moral phenomenon; he is not likely to be an important moral theorist. This is said without any disrespect for such a man. He is without doubt generally a very useful member of society, and in his way he is as useful as the ethicist is in his. One star differeth from another star in glory, and the exceeding glory is not always in the scientific star. The unquestioning loyalty of a man to his sacred duty may save a nation in a crisis; what scientist has ever achieved such a result? And even in the ordinary round of life the awed servant of duty is one variety of the salt of the earth, with perhaps more savor in it than is to be found in the scientific sort. But this is neither here nor there. The point is that not every man is by nature or disposition qualified for scientific work, and of those so qualified some are not qualified for work in the science of ethics, because they cannot deal with moral phenomena without fear and without favor.

The ethicist, however, need not be without moral enthusiasm, but his enthusiasm must be a zeal according to his ethical knowledge, not blind devotion to unchallenged duties. Yet it is well