iveness which is in the concrete claim itself,
_exist_? Take any demand, however slight, which any creature, however
weak, may make. Ought it not, for its own sole sake, to be satisfied?
If not, prove why not. The only possible kind of proof you could
adduce would be the exhibition of another creature who should make a
demand that ran the other way. The only possible reason there can be
why any phenomenon ought to exist is that such a phenomenon actually is
desired. Any desire is imperative to the extent of its amount; it
_makes_ itself valid by the fact that it exists at all. Some desires,
truly enough, are small desires; they are put forward by insignificant
persons, and we customarily make light of the obligations which they
bring. But the fact that such personal demands as these impose small
obligations does not keep the largest obligations from being personal
demands.

If we must talk impersonally, to be sure we can say {196} that 'the
universe' requires, exacts, or makes obligatory such or such an action,
whenever it expresses itself through the desires of such or such a
creature. But it is better not to talk about the universe in this
personified way, unless we believe in a universal or divine
consciousness which actually exists. If there be such a consciousness,
then its demands carry the most of obligation simply because they are
the greatest in amount. But it is even then not _abstractly right_
that we should respect them. It is only concretely right,--or right
after the fact, and by virtue of the fact, that they are actually made.
Suppose we do not respect them, as seems largely to be the case in this
queer world. That ought not to be, we say; that is wrong. But in what
way is this fact of wrongness made more acceptable or intelligible when
we imagine it to consist rather in the laceration of an _a priori_
ideal order than in the disappointment of a living personal God? Do
we, perhaps, think that we cover God and protect him and make his
impotence over us less ultimate, when we back him up with this _a
priori_ blanket from which he may draw some warmth of further appeal?
But the only force of appeal to _us_, which either a living God or an
abstract ideal order can wield, is found in the 'everlasting ruby
vaults' of our own human hearts, as they happen to beat responsive and
not irresponsive to the claim. So far as they do feel it when made by
a living consciousness, it is life answering to life