have therefore abhorred Kant and his a priorist imperative. Yet these very empiricists, Černyševskii, Lavrov, Mihailovskii, and Kropotkin, whose main demand in ethics is that there should be no imperative obligation, do in practice arrive at an imperative. For Černyševskii, the ethical "scientific" imperative, the imperative firmly grounded upon scientific considerations, is equally valid in the other worlds of stellar space. Mihailovskii appeals to conscience and the sense of honour; he does not consider that consequences can be the measure of ethical value, and the proclamation "To the Younger Generation" is as scornful of utilitarian economics as if it had been written by the slavophils or by Carlyle. It is precisely these materialistic utilitarians and hedonists à la Černyševskii who cling to absolute ethical rules. Preaching egoism, laughing at the idea of self-sacrifice, they demand unconditional self-surrender on behalf of Russia. "Die for the mir," exclaims Černyševskii, that is, die for the peasant, die for the people. Even to the nihilists, ethics is the chief of the sciences, and in this respect the nihilists are followed by the Russian socialists, the narodniki, the social revolutionaries, the very anarchists.
De facto, therefore, these Russian thinkers are followers of Kant; or (if you will) are followers of Hume, who endeavoured to protect his ethics against his own scepticism. Whilst Kant with his imperative constructed a so-called formal ethic, Hume established an ethic which, though materialist, was none the less absolute.
In this matter Russian philosophy is wholly at one with German idealist philosophy, for both are predominantly moral outlooks on the world. Russia adopts the humanitarian ideal of the eighteenth century, preaches it, and endeavours to realise it in practice.
Hence arises the vigorous demand for a unified philosophical outlook, hence the demand that theory and practice shall be harmonised. "Word and deed" becomes the device, at least the device of the younger generation; of the "children" as contrasted with the "fathers."
It need not surprise us that voices were heard proclaiming deeds rather than words (Bakunin), and representing theory as inferior to practice (Pisarev). For the newest lovers or friends of practice, voluntarism serves as an epistemological pretext.
