Thus many Life-systems present themselves.  Each of these includes a good.  The problem is, How is each section to realise that there is a good present in what each other section presents? [p.110] There must be some common standard by which the ideal of each section of the community can be measured, for it is in the light of such a standard alone that the lower good receives its true place, meaning, and value.  There are, beyond all sectional over-personal ideals, values which connote the highest welfare of everyone “who carries a human face.”  These values are the results of the partially collective experiences of the deepest in life, and have been gained in the history of the race.  They are the values which are the needs and rights of all.  Justice, Sympathy, Love—­these and others are the highest syntheses.  They have, as yet, been only partially reached; and this partial realisation is the possession of a few, and has not yet succeeded in becoming the necessary standard which shall pass judgment on all lower ideals.  “Rights are rights,” we are told.  This may be true, but something higher has to interpret them, or else one set of rights comes into conflict with other sets and stands but little chance of realisation.  And even if realised, a whole series of complexities immediately arises.  This has been, in the main, the history of human society.  And are we able to say that society has progressed much during the past century in this direction of illuminating lower needs in the light of higher ones which include the good of all?  Eucken doubts whether the progress has been great.  And here once more, [p.111] in connection with the deepest meaning of society and the individual, he sees the need of ideals which are universally true and universally valid.  This means that the spiritual life as it presents itself in the universally true, good, and beautiful, must become the sun which will shine upon all that is below it; it is the Whole in which the Parts must find their function and meaning.  If the life of society relates itself to anything lower than this, the best within it cannot come to flower and fruit.  In other words, society will have to return to a conception and utilisation of an absolute spiritual life before it can gain any new territory of eternal value.  Probably quite as much attention will have to be devoted to the Parts—­to the environment, the needs of the hour, the material comforts and happiness of life.  But granting that the possession of all these will come about, what then?  We are still wretchedly poor in the “inward parts.”  What we have won has not within itself sufficient spirituality to touch the deepest recesses of the soul.  Material plenty and pleasure are a good when they are used as they ought to be used.  Where is that “something” that teaches us this?  Where is the Ought?  The Ought is something outside and infinitely higher than all the gains which the environment or the group is ever able to bring forth.  “Life,” says Eucken,[36]