the conception of duty, from theological Morals; just as we saw above that the expression "necessity of an action," which is such a forced and awkward substitute for the word "shall," was only chosen because "shall" is the exact language of the Decalogue. The above definition: "Duty is the necessity of an action out of respect for the law," would therefore read in natural, undisguised, plain language: "Duty signifies an action which =ought= to be done out of obedience to a law." This is "the real form of the poodle."[4] But now as to the Law, which is the real foundation stone of the Kantian Ethics. =What does it contain? And where is it inscribed?= This is the chief point of inquiry. In the first place, be it observed that we have two questions to deal with: the one has to do with the =Principle=, the other with the =Basis= of Ethics--two entirely different things, although they are frequently, and sometimes indeed intentionally, confused. The principle or main proposition of an ethical system is the shortest and most concise definition of the line of conduct which it prescribes, or, if it have no imperative form, of the line of conduct to which it attaches real moral worth. It thus contains, in the general terms of a single enunciation, the direction for following the path of virtue, which is derived from that system: in other words, it is the _ὅ,τι_[5] of virtue. Whereas the =Basis= of any theory of Ethics is the _διότι_[6] of virtue, the =reason= of the obligation enjoined, of the exhortation or praise given, whether it be sought in human nature, or in the external conditions of the world, or in anything else. As in all sciences, so also in Ethics the _ὅ,τι_ must be clearly distinguished from the _διότι_. But most teachers of Morals wilfully confound this difference: probably because the _ὅ,τι_ is so easy, the _διότι_ so exceedingly difficult, to give. They are therefore glad to try to make up for the poverty on the one hand, by the riches on the other, and to bring about a happy marriage between _Πενία_ (poverty) and _Πόρος_ (plenty), by putting them together in one proposition.[7] This is generally done by taking the familiar _ὅ,τι_ out of the simple form in which it can be expressed, and forcing it into an artificial formula, from which it is only to be deduced as the conclusion of given premises; and the reader is led by this performance to feel as if he had grasped not only the thing, but its cause as well. We may easily convince ourselves of this by recalling all the most familiar principles of Morals. As, however, in what follows I have no intention of imitating acrobatic tricks of this sort, but purpose proceeding with all honesty and straightforwardness, I cannot make the principle of Ethics equivalent to its basis, but must keep the two quite separate. Accordingly, this _ὅ,τι_--_i.e._, the principle, the fundamental proposition--as to which in its essence all teachers of