684 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
allow of different interpretations. Some writers apply the word " sociology " to the widest generalizations of social phenomena; whereas, according to others, the scientific treatment of any social phenomenon falls within the scope of sociology. To this latter opinion I thoroughly subscribe. I define sociology as the science of social phenomena ; and by a social phenomenon I understand a mode of conduct which is related to an association of individuals either joint acts of associates, or conduct toward an associate or associates. What, then, is ethics? I believe that ethics, as a science, can only be the study of the moral consciousness as a fact. Normative ethics, which lays down rules for conduct, is not a science. The aim of every science is to discover some truth, and an ethical norm can be neither true nor false. It has been said that moral principles cannot be proved because they are first principles, used to demon- strate everything else ; but I believe that the real cause for the impossibility of proving moral principles is that all ethical concepts are ultimately based on emotions, of either approval or disapproval. The concepts of wrongness, lightness, duty, justice, goodness, virtue, merit, and so forth, refer to generali- zations of tendencies in certain phenomena to call forth a moral emotion. It may be true or not that a given mode of conduct has a tendency to evoke in us a certain emotion, but the contents of an emotion fall entirely outside the category of truth. Now, moral feelings and ideas express themselves through the medium of conduct which has reference to associates ; in other words, the modes of conduct which form the subject-matter of sociology are to a large extent expressions of feelings and ideas which form the subject-matter of scientific ethics. The science of ethics is therefore practically a part of sociology. It deals with the feelings and ideas underlying certain modes of conduct, while sociology deals with the modes of conduct which spring from those feelings and ideas. The relation between sociology and normative ethics is, of course, a very different one. As normative ethics is no science at all, it cannot form part of sociology, which is a science. However, in laying down its rules for conduct, normative ethics must consider the results at which sociology has arrived; but this point has already been so admirably treated by Professor Hoffding that I have nothing to add. Antrther question is how far normative ethics should exercise an influence on sociology. I think that this influence ought to be as small as possible. The sociologist must never forget that his business is, not to pass moral judgments on social facts, but to study those facts as they are.
PROFESSOR HOFFDING, in replying: It is a very difficult question, that of the relation between sociology and ethics. It is many-sided. It is not quite easy to find a rather short expression to characterize it.
lectureship in " The Comparative Study of Social Institutions." Dr. Wester- inarck has almost ready for publication a work on comparative ethics, for which he has been preparing and accumulating material for more than half a generation. His preliminary research includes several years' travel and investigation among the Arab tribes of Morocco.
