instance choose as our example of the class, in case of any given equation.
Now, it needs no argument to show that what we usually call in the empirical world Moral Relationships — that is, precisely the relationships which we conceive as existing amongst such ethical Selves as we have been defining — are to be conceived as of precisely such ambiguous character, no matter how exactly they may be defined. Here we speak not alone of metaphysical truth, but also of every-day fact. If we say that A and B are men, and are legal equals with respect to some form of social activity, we mean that what A does cannot wholly predetermine in the eyes of the law what B shall do in return; and that, too, however exact their relationships are, so long as they still remain quite equal. If, for instance, A and B are voters upon the same issues, and are equals as voters, that means that when A votes in a given way, B is left free by the relationship in question to vote in any one of several possible ways, as the case may determine, while remaining all the time the equal fellow-voter with A. Just so, when A speaks to B, B as his equal either may or may not speak to A in return; and if A makes a given proposal to B, B may or may not consent. The question, in all these cases, is not yet of any metaphysical freedom, but only of the nature of an ordinarily recognised relationship. The preservation of the equality, as a relationship, demands, within limits, the indetermination of the acts of one of the two equals by the acts of the other. The relation may be preserved, despite
