But what concerns us here is the ethical parallel. The egocentric predicament in this aspect purports to compel the admission by the "altruist" that since whatever he chooses to do must be his act and is obviously done because he wishes, for good and sufficient reasons of his own, to do it, therefore he is an egoist after all--perhaps in spite of himself and then again perhaps not. The ethical realism of G. E. Moore (_Principia Ethica_, 1903) breaks out of the predicament by declaring Good independent of all desire, wish or human interest and _indefinable_, and by supplying a partial list of things thus independently good. What I do, I do because it seems likely to put me in possession of objective _Good_, not because it accords with some habit or whim of mine (although my own pleasure is undoubtedly _one_ of the good things). It is noteworthy that Perry declines to follow Moore in this (_op. cit._, p. 331 ff.). Now such an ethical objectivism can give no account of the motivation, or the process, of the individual's efforts to attain, for guidance in any case, a "more adequate" apprehension of what things are good than he may already possess, just as the objectivist theory of consciousness ( = knowledge) can supply no clue as to how or whether a _more_ or a _less_ comprehensive or a qualitatively _different_ "cross-section of entities" can or should be got into one's "mind" as warrant or guidance ("stimulus") for a contemplated response that is to meet a present emergency (cf. John Dewey, "The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology," _Psychol. Rev._, Vol. IV). Thus neither sort of deliverance out of the alleged predicament of egocentricity abates in the least the only serious inconvenience or danger threatened by subjectivism. [58] Cf. W. Jethro Brown, _The Underlying Principles of Modern Legislation_ (3d ed., London, 1914), pp. 165-68. [59] Bosanquet: _Principle of Individuality and Value_, pp. 13, 15, 20, 24, 27, 30.