ulation, ... but because 'right is right.' ... For
practical purposes it is comparatively unimportant how this standard got
there ... as an absolute imperative rule." [20] As to the apprehended
ill effect of agnosticism on morals, he says: "The foundations of
morals [21] are fortunately built on solid rock and not on shifting sand.
It may truly be said in a great many cases that, as individuals and
nations become more sceptical, they become more moral." [22] "_If there
is one thing more certain than another_ in the history of evolution, it
is that morals have been evolved by the same laws as regulate the
development of species." [23]

These citations embody Mr. Laing's opinions on this point, and show very
clearly his utter incapacity for elementary philosophic thought. Here,
as elsewhere, as soon as he leaves the bare record of facts and embarks
in any kind of speculation, he shows himself helpless; however, he tries
to fortify his own courage and that of his readers, with "it is clear,"
"it is evident," "it is certain."

To say that "right is right," sounds very oracular; but it either means
that "right" is an ultimate spring of action, inexplicable on
evolutionist principles, or that right is the will of the strongest, or
an illusory inherited foreboding of pain, or a calculation of future
pleasure and pain, or something which, in no sense, is a true account of
what men _do_ mean by right. To say that moral principles "carry
conviction with them, and prove themselves" _(i.e._, are self-evident),
unless, as we suspect, it is mere verbiage conveying nothing particular
to Mr. Laing's brain, is to deny that right has reference to the
consequences of action as bearing on human progress and evolution, which
is to deny the very theory he wishes to uphold. No intuitionist could
have spoken more strongly. Then we are assured that we "feel" rightness,
or that "right is right"--apparently as a simple irresoluble quality of
certain actions--and with same breath, that "it is _better_ for
ourselves and others to act on these rules," where he jumps off to
utilitarianism again; and then we are forbidden to "obey the selfish
impulses of our animal nature"--a strange prohibition for one who sees
in us nothing but animal nature, who denies us any free power to
withstand its impulses. Then it is "clearly our highest wisdom to follow
right"--an appeal to prudential motives--"not from any selfish
calculations"--a repudiation of prudentia