by the happiness it brings.  But for a working conception it is far better.  Self-realization has never been the aim of the saints and heroes.  Imagine a patriot dying for his country’s freedom, or a mother giving years of sacrificing toil for her child, on the ground of self-development!  The patriot may feel that through his sacrifice and that of his comrades his countrymen will be freer or more united or rid of some curse i.e., ultimately, happier.  The mother thinks consciously of the happiness of the child she serves.  But except for the young man or properly be for the time self-centered, self-development makes but a sorry ideal.  We may admire a Goethe who cares primarily for the development and perfection of his own powers-if he is handsome and clever and of a winning personality.  But the men we really love and reverence are those who forget themselves and prefer to go, if necessary, with their artistic sense undeveloped or their scientific sense untrained, so they may bring help and peace to their fellows. [Footnote:  Cf. a recent story writer, Nalbro Hartley, in Ainslee’s (a mountain-white is speaking):  “I reckon the best way to get on in this world is to learn just enough to make you all always want to know more but to be so busy usin’ what you-all has learned that there ain’t no time to learn the rest!”] Goethe, with all his genius, encyclopedic knowledge, and universality of experience, his wit and energy and power of expression, stands on a lower moral level than Buddha, St. Francis, Christ.

(4) Finally, the theory, if taken strictly, is immoral.  To set up self-realization as the criterion is to say that the self-realizing act is to be chosen even if it should produce less than the greatest attainable total good.  That such cases do not occur, no one can prove; in fact, observation tends to the belief that they do.  This criterion is, then, not only practically but theoretically selfish.  Perfection of character should be our aim, yes.  But perfection of character is not to be found in a mere indiscriminate cultivation of whatever faculties we may have.  It means the superposition of a severe discipline upon our faculties, a purification of the will, directed by more ultimate considerations.  Is the source of duty the will of God?  “Obedience to the will of God” describes the highest morality, as does the phrase “perfection of character.”  But is it, any more than that, the ultimate justification of morality?  Is the will of God the source of morality?  An adequate discussion of this question would involve a philosophy of religion, but a few considerations may be useful, and it is hoped, not misleading.