6. Sub-divisions of Social Ethics. The Family 269 _(a)_ Depends on natural fact 269 _(b)_ Is factor in the State 270 _(c)_ Ethical and Monogamous Household 271 _(d)_ Relation to Property 272
7. Bourgeois Society. Justice, State Regulation, and Trade Societies 272
8. The State proper, or Political Constitution 280
9. Public discussion and public opinion 285
10. Criticism of such an analysis of the Modern State 287
INSTITUTIONS CONSIDERED AS ETHICAL IDEAS 296-334
1. The individual soul and the social mind 296
2. Institutions as common substance of minds 297
3. The Family and Property as elements of mind 299
4. The District or Neighbourhood as an element of mind 304
5. Class as an element of mind. “The Poor” as an ethical idea 310
6. The Nation-State as an element of mind 320
7. Morality of public and private action 322
8. Humanity as an element of mind 328 _(a)_ Humanity not predicable of mankind as a whole 328 _(b)_ Humanity does not = mankind as a true community 329 _(c)_ Dichotomous expressions for humanity and mankind 330 _(d)_ The self beyond any actual society; Art, Philosophy, Religion 332
RISE AND CONDITIONS OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL THEORY OF THE STATE
1. First, it will be well to indicate, in a very few words, what is implied in a “philosophical theory,” as distinguished from theories which make no claim to be philosophical. The primary difference is, that a philosophical treatment is the study of some thing as a whole and for its own sake. In a certain sense it may be compared to the gaze of a child or of an artist. It deals, that is, with the total and unbroken effect of its object. It desires to ascertain what a thing is, what is its full characteristic and being, its achievement in the general act of the world. History, explanation, analysis into cause and conditions, have value for it only in so far as they contribute to the intelligent estimation of the fullest nature and capabilities of the real individual whole which is under investigation. We all know that a flower is one thing for the geometrician, another for the chemist, another for { 2} the botanist, and another, again, for the artist. Now, philosophy can of course make no pretension to cope with any one of the specialists on his own ground. But the general nature of the task imposed upon it is this: aiding itself, so far as possible, by the trained vision of all specialists, to make some attempt to see the full significance of the flower as a word or letter in the great book of the world. And this we call studying it, as it is, and for its own sake, without reservation or presupposition. It is assumed, then, for the purpose of a philosophical treatment, that everything, and more particularly in this case the political life of man, has a nature of its own, which is worthy of investigation on its own merits and for its own sake. How its phases come into being, or what causes or conditions have played a part in its growth, are other questions well worthy of investigation. But the philosophical problem is rather to see our object as it is and to learn what it is, to estimate, so to speak, its kind and degree of self-maintenance in the world, than to trace its history or to analyse its causation.
