Page:Philosophical Review Volume 3.djvu/653

637 things, we are reminded of Martineau's passion for symmetry: that we have here "a scale of no more nor less than twelve 'Categories' of Moral Impulse; of no more nor less than four classes with exactly three impulses each; in which the third is, in some way, the result, or at least the equivalent, of the first two" (p. 53). Chapter V treats of "Theory of Prudence." The system is found to be less anti-Utilitarian than would at first appear. It is "at one time strictly intuitional, rather ascetic; at another time we have regulated self-regard naïvely indicated" (p. 71). The theological implications of the system are treated in the short chapter on "Religion and Reverence." Dr. Hertz says of Kant and Martineau: "Both treat the problem in a most unsatisfactory way. To the Theist, too little is given; to the non-Theist, too much is woven into the argument" (p. 76). In the conclusion, after paying a high tribute to Dr. Martineau, the author says: "If Martineau's book be typical of its class, Utilitarianism and Intuitionalism are no longer going along on parallel lines. Whether this is merely the approach of an asymptote to an hyperbole, however near, yet forever infinitely distant from the point of contact, or whether they are soon to intersect, only the future can tell " (p. 83).

E. A.

We have here the promised conclusion of Dr. Simmers Introduction to the Science of Ethics, the first volume of which was reviewed in the second volume of (pp. 226-231). The general estimate which we gave of that part may safely be extended to the present work. The aim of the book is a critical one. It investigates and analyzes certain ethical concepts, fundamental notions, pointing out their defects and inconsistencies. An author's product must be measured by the manner in which he realizes the end which he has set before himself. Dr. Simmel tells us plainly enough in the title what is the purpose of his efforts. His work professes to be a critique of ethical ground notions. Does it fulfill this mission, and how does it fulfill the same? These are the questions which, in my belief, the reviewer has to answer. The demand for more positive results is an unfair one, under the circumstances. The author has the right, indeed he has the duty, to mark off for himself a field for investigation, and to confine his attention to the choice once made. He is to be judged by what he accomplishes within that sphere, not by what others would like to have him do outside of it. Many reviewers of the volume have therefore thoroughly misunderstood the tendency of the Einleitung, and have made unreasonable and premature demands for more positive results. Dr. Simmel will most likely furnish the world with something positive before he lays down his pen. But whether he does or not, is no concern of ours.