ETHERS. 235 ETHICS. halogen derivative of a hydrocarbon, such as ethyl chloride, ethyl bromide, or ethyl iodide, with the sodium compound of an alcohol. Ethyl iodide is represented by the formula C 2 H r ,l ; so- dium alcoholatc, by the formula Xa(.)t.'»ll . Since sodium (Na) has a great affinity for iodine (1), the iodide and the alcoholatc will, on being mixed, readily enter into chemical reaction, by virtue of which a transformation will take place that can be represented only by the following chemical equation : C 2 H 5 I + NaOC 2 H 5 = Nal + CjHj.O.CjH, Ethyl iodide Sodium Sodium Di-ethyl ether alcoholate iodide Ethers are usually subdivided into simple and in i. red. The two hydrocarbon radicles in a sim- ple ether are identical; in a mixed ether they are different. Thus ordinary ether is a simple ether, its formula being (CiH 5 ),0. On the con- trary, methyl-ethyl ether, represented by the formula CH 3 .O.C 2 H 5 , is a mixed ether. Mixed ethers may be prepared by the same methods as simple ethers. Thus methyl-ethyl ether may be obtained either by treating a mixture of methyl alcohol (wood alcohol) and ordinary (ethyl) alcohol with sulphuric acid, or by treating so- dium methylate (NaOCH,) with ethyl iodide (C 2 H 5 I). By the latter method the formation of the mixed ether would take place according to the following chemical equation : CHONa + CHJ = Nal + CHj.O.CjH,, Sodium Ethyl iodide Sodium Methyl-ethyl methylate iodide ether The ethers are as a rule very stable compounds that are not affected either by alkalies or by di- lute acids. Most of them are light, volatile, in- flammable liquids, insoluble in water, but readily soluble in the alcohols. The most typical and useful compound of the class is ordinary ether. The chemical constitution of the ethers was first clearly explained by Williamson in 1855. The term compomid ethers is sometimes applied to another class of compounds, which are, how- ever, at present usually termed esters, or ethereal salts. See Estebs. ETHICAL CULTURE SOCIETY. See So- cieties for Ethical Culture. ETH'ICS (Gk. ri ifiud, la cthika, or r, Wucti, lir rthike, ethical science, from 9/9os, ethos, cus- tom, habit). The science of morality. There has been much discussion as to whether it is really a science or not rather a branch of philosophy. The present article is written in the belief that ethics is as independent a science as economics or political theory. Many arguments have been adduced to prove that scientific ethics is impos- sible ; but they are not in themselves convincing, and even if they were more plausible they would not convince any one who had before him the accomplished fact of a scientific ethics. Such we have in the treatises of Stephen, Alexander, and Wundt, to mention only a few recent authors. In the definition given above the subject mat- ter of ethics is stated to be morality. It is im- portant to notice that ethics does not presume to construct morality out of whole cloth. Like any other science, it deals with actual phenomena that exist before the science comes into being. If there were no such thing as morality in the world, if men had not a consciousness ot obliga- Vol. VII.— 16. tion, did not feel the attractive power of moral ideals, and did not find satisfaction in the reali- zation of these ideals, ethics would mil l,e, anj more than mineralogy would be in a non-mi world. Hut since morality is as indubitable a fact as crystallization, ii piques curiosity to the comprehension of it. A ng the questions that arise are the following: What is moralitj i it explicable as a result of evolution! When thoroughly understood in its fundamental fea- tures and in its historical development, is it seen to be a reasonable fact, or is it a prejudice to be outgrown or an infantile way of looking at the world, to be put away with many other childish things when once we arrive at the age of discre- tion'; If it is something of permanent value, is there any way in which its value may be en- hanced ? It is necessary to be on our guard when we come to ask what morality is. The question is often confused with that other question — What ought morality to be? This latter question, however, cannot be reasonably answered till the former is answered, any more than the question What ought a healthy man to be can be answered till we know what actual health really is. The morality of a certain man, or of a certain people, or of a certain time, is itself amenable to a higher standard of morality only in a sense that actual empirical healthfulness is amenable to a higher standard, idealized from experienced health. But what is that standard? Here we come to a point concerning which there is a fundamental difference of opinion. Some say the standard is God's will (theological voluntarism) ; some that it is pure reason (rationalism) ; some that it is pleasure, either of the individual or of a community of individuals (hedonism, egoistic and universalistic) ; sbme that it is perfect bio- logical adaptation to the environment (biolo- gism) ; some that it is perfection, variously de- fined, of the individual or of the race (perfec- tionism). In view of this difference of opinion, it seems impossible to answer off-hand the ques- tion what morality ought to be. But the ques- tion what morality is and has been is more hope- ful. Although the moral consciousness is any- thing but simple, still it is open to study aiid description. In the first place, the form or type of moral consciousness we are best acquainted with is one that is capable of appreciating an antagonism between two or more motives. If there were never a competing desire standing out against the safe course always adopted, or, to use the language of religious experience, if there were no temptations, there would be no morality such as we know of. This feature will be discussed below. The second characteristic of mature moral con- sciousness is that without the capacity for self- consciousness it could not exist. The motives in the moral consciousness are not merely desires for this and that object, but desires which may be considered by the agent as indicating his own character. The significance of this feature of morality can be brought out better by comparing the consciousness of a presumably non-moral be ing with that of a moral being. A cat may desire a. warm berth on a bed, and may be averse to the whipping that comes to her when caught on the bed. Now, of course, we know nothing infallibly about a cat's thoughts, hut for the present argu-
