virtue even though it forces him to connive in predatory practices of his concern. The class-conscious worker may be willing to disrupt society in the interest of his class because all his moral needs are satisfied by his devotion to what he regards as the most significant social group. While this ethical paradox of patriotism is obviously not confined to political groups, the nation is most seriously tempted to unethical conduct because it is not a voluntary association, its group is conveniently isolated from others and loyalty to it is least qualified by other conflicting loyalties. It may be set down as a truth of almost axiomatic finality, that groups tend to be unethical in proportion to the degree of unqualified loyalty which they are able to claim or exact of their members. In this connection it may be noted that democracy has increased rather than diminished the imperialism of nations, for it has given patriotism a higher moral sanction and thus reduced the moral scruples which might qualify the loyalty of their citizens. The arrogance of nations and their insistence on moral autonomy has developed simultaneously with the extension of democracy. It is this ethical paradox of patriotism which invalidates the contention that the root of all imperialism is the imperialism of the individual. It is true of course that group loyalty may become a device for delegating our vices to the group and imagining ourselves virtuous. Some types of political arrogance and race prejudice are obviously methods of compensating individuals for their lack of opportunity to bully their immediate neighbors. Yet on the whole the unethical character of group action is determined as much by the partial virtues as by the vices of individuals.