At the outset, the writer proposes to examine the claim of sociology to dominate the older subject of ethics, and even to reduce it to a department of itself. After briefly sketching the aims and methods of the young science, he begins the discussion by assuming that sociology has become an established science. If we suppose this, we must also suppose its forecast of social consequences to exercise an important effect on the practical application of general ethical principles. Indeed, some effect of this kind has already been produced on current ethical notions by the branch of sociology known as political economy. But the more important and more disputable element of the claim promises not merely to modify the practical application of ethical principles, but to determine these very principles themselves. Our author admits that the connection of sociology with the subject-matter of ethics must be so intimate that its claim to dominate and subordinate this science shall be natural, and, yet, he maintains that this claim is due to a confusion of popular thought. For it is impossible to suppose a conflict so long as both ethics and sociology keep within their own domains. The former is concerned only with what ought to be, while the latter, even when it deals with ethical judgments, is only concerned with what is, has been, and will be judged. Still, there is a possible coincidence between the two subjects in respect of general truths, so close as, if accepted, to justify the view that sociology is destined to absorb ethics. Two hypotheses will illustrate this: "Supposing a consensus of sociologists to declare that the preservation of the social organism is the one all-comprehensive end, and supposing a consensus of moralists to accept this sociological end as the ultimate good to the attainment of which all human action should be directed," then it would be broadly true to say that ethics was absorbed by sociology. But, as a matter of fact, neither of these hypotheses can be accepted as more than partially true. The conclusion is that, while our ethical and sociological thought should be brought into clear and consistent relation, the mutual influence and interpretation of ideas between the two studies should be carefully watched in order to avoid any source of confusion.
Lena M. Aldrich.
HISTORICAL.
Lotze was led to his conception of the unity of things by the difficulty which the problem of interaction presented to his thought. Interaction between two independent beings seemed to him an inconceivable and contradictory notion. Hence, he argued, there can be no independent beings;
