Page:Ethical Studies (reprint 1911).djvu/7

CONTENTS.
ESSAY I.
			page
	THE VULGAR NOTION OF RESPONSIBILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE THEORIES OF FREE-WILL AND NECESSITY,		1
Object of the inquiry (1-3). The common notion of Responsibility (3-8); irreconcileable with ‘Freedom’ (8-12); and with rational prediction (13-17). Ground of the objection to rational prediction (17-22). Common opinion and Necessitarianism (22-24). Irreconcileable as to Punishment and Responsibility (24-30). Reason of this twofold (30-37).
	Note A. Compulsion and Responsibility (39). Note B. Character how far fixed (46). Note C. Freedom (50).
ESSAY II.
	WHY SHOULD I BE MORAL?	.    .    .	53
Question rests on a dogmatic preconception (53-56); which is opposed to the moral consciousness (56-57); and is unreasonable (58-59). The End is self-realization (59); as is shown from morality (60); and from psychological considerations (61-62). It means realizing self as a whole (63-67); and an infinite whole (67-74).
	Note to Essay II. (75).
ESSAY III.
	PLEASURE FOR PLEASURE’S SAKE,	.    .    .	78
Happiness a vague phrase (78-79). Common opinion on pleasure (79-80). Hedonism irreconcileable with morality (81-85). Illusory nature of the Hedonistic end (86-89). My pleasure as the end gives no rule of life (90-94). And the pleasure of all is illusory (94-95); opposed to morality (96); and gives no practical guidance (96-101); it is dogmatically postulated (101-103); and irreconcileable with Hedonistic psychology (103-105). Further modifications of Hedonism. Qualitative distinction of pleasures is, in both its forms, untenable (106-111). Further criticism on Mill’s view (111-112). Results (113-114).
	Note to Essay III. (118).