ideals war their wars, shadowy struggles, such as one would expect the tedious ghosts of Ossian’s heroes to carry on in their cloudy cars; but reality will never be one whit the wiser for all such deeds. For when you forsake the real world you have no basis left for your ideals but individual caprice, and every idealist will be his own measure of all things, and an elastic measure at that.”
To this, how can the idealist answer? Only, if at all, by the fact of his success in establishing such a criterion as shall be independent of his own caprice, without being realistic.
We have let the contending doctrines fight some part of their old battles over again. How shall we decide between them? Alas! the decision is the whole labor of founding a moral doctrine. We have not yet seen deeply enough into their opposition. They may both be one-sided. The truth may lie in the middle. But as yet we have no right to dogmatize. This capriciousness in the choice of ideals seems a grave defect in a moral system; we cannot submit to the objection that our boasted ideal is just our whim. Yet how shall we escape this? Equally unsatisfactory it seems to say: “I believe in such and such ideal solely because I see it realized.” That is too much like saying, “Might is right.” And thus we should come to an equal capriciousness on this side; for if might makes right, then another and opposing might, if triumphant, would make another and opposing right. And in this wise there would be no true distinction at all between right and wrong. There seems in fact so far only an acciden-
