natural impulses and capacities are. In the utilization
and fulfillment of these will man find his most complete
realization and happiness. The standard of goodness, therefore,
is measured in terms of the extent to which action promotes
a complete and harmonious utilization of natural impulses
and natural capacities. Ethics, from such a viewpoint,
cannot set up arbitrary standards, but must form its standards
by inquiries into the fundamental and natural needs and
desires of men. Instead of laying down eternal principles to
which human beings must be made to conform, it must derive
its principles from observations of human experience, and test
them there. The good is what does good; the bad what does
harm. And what is good for men, and bad for men, depends
not on rigid _a priori_ intellectual standards, but on the original
nature which is each man's inheritance.

To base ethics upon an analysis of the conditions of human
nature, as scientific inquiry reveals it, carries with it two
implications. It means that nothing that is shown to be a part of
man's inevitable original equipment can with justice to man's
welfare be ruled out. Every instinct taken by itself is as good
as any other. It is only when one instinct competes with
another, so that excessive indulgence of one, as, for example,
that of sex or pugnacity, interferes with all a man's other
instincts or interests (or with those of other men), that an
instinct becomes evil. It means, secondly, that since individuals
differ, and since situations are infinitely various and
individual, no arbitrary and fixed laws can be laid down as
fundamental eternal principles.

MORAL KNOWLEDGE. The contrast between the two types
of morality that have been historically current may be
approached from the standpoint of moral knowledge. That is,
moral theories may be classified on the basis of their answer
to the question: How do moral judgments arise? The chief
contrast to be drawn is that between Intuitionalism on the
one hand, and Empiricism on the other. Intuitionalism holds
briefly that the moral quality of an act is intuitively perceived,
and is recognized apart from experience of its consequences.
The empirical theory holds that moral judgments come to be
attached to acts as a result of experience, and particularly
experiences of the approval and disapproval of other people.
The contrast will again become clearer by a discussion of each
theory separately.

INTUITIONALIS