response to evil, shows what sort of reciprocal innervations his body has acquired. And while such a mechanistic interpretation of an ethical standard may seem astonishing, yet such a _modus agendi_ is, unless we are greatly deceived, the one which human beings actually employ, and consequently it is the only one which has any place in an empirical science of conduct. _A Further Remark on the Opposites of “Good”_ From our definition of “evil” as an intensification of “bad” in the positive sense of that term, it can at once be noted that these two words do not even together supply a thoroughgoing antonym to the word “good.” For they do not strictly imply action-patterns which in the minute and fine are opposed to those underlying all the valid uses of the word “good.” It is not to the point that “in general” (which can only mean here _vaguely_) these words are antithetical to each other; our analysis has produced knowledge that henceforth discounts all such remarks. And, if anyone says that for the purposes of morality, the traditional antithesis is still valid, the answer is that morality, after all, is only custom, while ethics is primarily a critical insight into that reality which the moralist has always sought to make obscure. A more important conclusion, however, is still to be drawn from the foregoing analysis. Which is, that “evil” is not, as has usually been concluded, an opposite of “good.” Indeed, if we have described the situation fairly, when we say that ‘evil denotes that our wishes have been thwarted to such an extent as to call forth from us the most energetic, antagonistic reactions of which we are capable,’ we can only deduce from this that the antagonistic reactions are aroused for the purpose of replacing something that is “bad” by something that is “good.” But if this be the case, then the emphatic quality attaching to the word “evil” is really a sign that we have already started an outgoing reaction that shall furnish the desired compensation. This two-fold meaning of the word “evil” is worthy of more than a passing remark, but suffice it to say that in the light of what has gone before, the “problem of evil” now becomes the problem of educating a man how to replace the “bad” with the “good,” rather than a problem over which the metaphysician may dawdle or the moralist mope. FOOTNOTES: [8] THE USES OF THE WORD “BAD” I. _The Privative Significations of the Word “Bad.”_ 1. Bad air; vitiated, which cannot sustain healthy respiration. 2. Bad coin; debased, counterfeit. 3. Bad food; deficient in nourishment. 4. Bad food; repugnant on account of its smell or taste, whether deficient in nourishment or not. 5. Bad shot or guess; incorrect, faulty, below standard or par. 6. Bad debts; those which cannot or are not expected to be paid. 7. To go bad; to decay. 8. Bad workmanship; defective, below par, sometimes called poor or worthless.