designate it by the term _heterocentric_. A person therefore may destroy a thing, entirely consume and use it up for his own benefit. But he may not treat a person as a thing, and destroy that, either for any end of pleasure that he finds in destroying it, or in view of any gain or good, whereunto that destruction serves him as a means. [Footnote 17: The exception apparent in the Incarnation is not relevant here.] 3. In the above argumentation account has not been taken of God, to whom for His sovereign dominion all created personalities stand in the light of _things_, and may be destroyed at His pleasure. But account has been taken of the State, to which the individual is subordinate as a citizen, but not as a man and a person. It is permitted no more to the State than to the individual ever to destroy the innocent _directly_. 4. An effect is brought about _indirectly_, when it is neither _intended_ as an _end_ for its own sake, nor _chosen_ as a _means_ making towards an end, but attaches as a circumstance concomitant either to the end intended or to the means chosen. The case of a circumstance so attaching to the means chosen is the only case that we need consider here in speaking of _indirect_, _concomitant_, or _incidental_ effects. The study of these incidents is of vast importance to the moralist. Most cases of practical difficulty to decide between right and wrong, arise out of them. They are best illustrated in the manner of killing. That one matter, well worked out, becomes a pattern for other matters in which they occur. (_Ethics_, c. iii., s. ii., p. 31.)