ance with his inclinations, but
in cases where these clash with the social well being, it can supply no
reason why the former should give way to the latter.

The argument rests upon a dual confusion. First, the moral "ought" is no
more than an organised and conscious form of "must," and not something
distinct from it. One may test the matter by taking a case. A man says,
I ought so to work as to promote the general welfare of society. If we
seek to find the source of this feeling we come ultimately upon the
feeling of tribal solidarity in virtue of which certain tribes survive
in the struggle for existence. It is gregariousness struggling into
consciousness. The moral "ought" is an idealised form of the primitive
tribal "must." And the "must" of primitive life is encouraged and
developed because it is one of the conditions of survival.

The second point of confusion is based upon a supposed opposition
between individual inclinations and an ideal conception of duty. That
the two are often, as a matter of fact, in conflict, must be admitted.
And the cause is that while our inclinations represent a heritage from
the past, our ideals are a projection into the future. But the
contention is based upon their supposed permanent hostility, and that
need not be taken for granted. For the whole course of social evolution
tends to bring about a substantial identification of personal and social
well-being. More and more as the race develops it is being recognised
that there is no real individual life apart from social life, of which
it is the creation and the expression. Such antagonism as exists is the
inevitable result of a conflict between an organism and its adaptation
to a changing environment. And from this point of view the whole growth
of man is in the nature of an expansion of his sympathies and sense of
duty over an ever-widening area. The primitive egoism of the tribal
individual is extended to the nation, that of the nation to the empire,
and thence to the whole of humanity. There is no destruction or denial
of self in such cases, it is a development of the sense of self over an
enlarging area.

Finally, if a secular code of morals will not suffice, it is sheer
rhetoric to say that religion is powerful enough to operate where
naturalism fails. On the contrary, in a civilised community religious
appeals tend to become secular appeals in disguise. On the admission of
Christian advocates the two most powerful appeals that